Agenda 10/02/2001 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2001, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 10/02/2001 Rancho Palos verdes Estates, City Council Agenda October 2, 2001
October 02, 2001

DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS
**CLICK HERE FOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA

 


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3 The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.




RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

OCTOBER 2, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


 

6:30 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-79

NEXT ORD. NO. 371

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


1. Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.


2. 2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. (Schonborn)

Recommendation: Direct staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during Calendar Year 2000 and through June 30, 2001.


3. Peninsula Seniors Grant. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NEW CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF A $25,000 GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002


4. Appointment of members to the Miraleste and Ridgecrest Recreation & Park Districts. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make the following appointments: Miraleste Recreation & Park District: (1) Appoint Peter D. Glusac and Dawn E. Henry for a full term ending December 2, 2005. (2) Appoint Keith Harter to the unexpired term ending December 5, 2003. Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District: Appoint Victor Hansen, Gwynne Shaw and Dolores Pittelkow to a full term ending December 2, 2005.


5. Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE Pipe for the Palos Verdes South Drainage Repair Project. (Allison)

Recommendation: Review and reconfirm by 4/5 vote the Council’s September 18th action to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive So. Drainage Repair Project.


6. Arterial Rehabilitation Program: Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards. (Allison)

Recommendation: (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company to overlay portions of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. (3) Award a $43,600 professional services agreement to DMc for construction management and inspection services. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for a professional services agreement with DMc Engineering.


7. Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding District. (Allison)

Recommendations: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUND DISTRICTS.


8. July and August 2001 Treasurer’s Reports. (McLean)

Recommendation: Receive and file.


9. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


10. Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A FEE TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS REQUESTING ADVANCE FUNDING BY THE CITY FOR FORMATION COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2001-__.


REGULAR BUSINESS:


11. Ordinance No. 370 - Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax. (Lynch)
Recommendation: RE-INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX.

12. Planning Case No. ZON2001-00005: a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition for an existing single-family residence in the Portuguese Bend Club community. (Applicant: Len Cushman, 113 Spindrift Drive) (Fox)
Recommendation: Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit.

13. Planning Case No. ZON2001-00004: a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck for an existing single-family residence in the Portuguese Bend Club community. (Applicants: Andrew & Kelly Ely, 112 Spindrift Drive) (Fox)
Recommendation: (1) Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit. (2) Authorize Staff to prepare a notice of termination for an existing covenant related to a previous, expired moratorium exemption permit for the property.

14. Border Issues Status Report. (Evans)

Recommendation: Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.


15. Peninsula High School Yearbook Advertisement. (Petru)

Recommendation: Consider whether to place an advertisement in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook.


16. San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich and Sons, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,250,556 and authorize staff to spend an additional $157,540 for anticipated extra items of work for a total authorization of $2,408,096. (2) Award a professional service contract to Harris and Associates for an amount not to exceed $349,300 for inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (3) Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $194,918 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $279,025. (4) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $31,100 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $79,300. (5) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 16,000 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $140,610. (6) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT BY $1,150,000 MILLION, FROM $2,000,000 TO $3,150,000.


17. Format of City Council Minutes. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing preparation, format and changes to City Council minutes.

18. Establishment of a Schedule and Venue for the Long Point Project City Council Public Hearings. (Rojas)
Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as to when to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and where to conduct the public hearings.

19. Disclosure of Contact with Major Landowners/Developers. (Councilman Stern)
Recommendation: Adopt a City Council Policy that: Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall publicly disclose in writing to the City Clerk the existence of all communications between such person and a major landowner or major developer of real property within the City, which communication relates to such real property. A "Major Landowner" or "Major Developer" shall mean any person or representative of a person or entity who owns or has an interest in, or is attempting to develop any parcel in excess of 10 acres. Such contacts must be reported in writing within 30 days of the date of such contact. The writing need only identify (1) the parties to the communication, (2) the real property involved, (3) the date, and (4) include a very general statement of the topic of the communication. Such report shall be maintained by the City Clerk and be available for review by any person.

20. Proposed Amendment to the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review procedures.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government
Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property:Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,

7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators:City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Negotiating Parties:York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment


A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

OCTOBER 2, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


6:30 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-79

NEXT ORD. NO. 371

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:








1. Motion to waive full reading.


Recommendation:
Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.







2. 2001 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. (Schonborn)

Recommendation: Direct staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during Calendar Year 2000 and through June 30, 2001.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT: 2001 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN.

Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Direct Staff to forward the City’s Annual Progress Report on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan to the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and to the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the current status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during the 2000 calendar year and through June 30, 2001.

BACKGROUND

The City’s General Plan is a statement by local citizens of what is in the best interest of their community. The General Plan has functioned, and continues to function, as a guide to the future desires of residents. It provides the means by which the desired future can be obtained through specified goals and policies. Such goals and policies are implemented in conjunction with the City’s Development Code. To assess the progress of implementing the General Plan, Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, requires that each city "provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the [general] plan and progress in its implementation."

On August 28, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the attached 2000-2001 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and directed Staff, via Minute Order, to forward the report to the City Council for review and consideration.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section 65400 of the State Government Code, Staff has prepared the City’s Annual Report regarding the status of the General Plan. The Annual Report lists the actions taken by the City, and the General Plan goals and policies implemented between January 2000 through June 30, 2001. This is because Staff is transitioning from a calendar year reporting cycle to a fiscal year reporting cycle. The Report is attached for the City Council’s consideration; and, if acceptable to the City Council, the Report will be subsequently delivered to both the State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Direct Staff to modify the Report, and include additional information as directed by the City Council prior to forwarding the Report to the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

 

Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to comply with the requirements of Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, which requires that an annual report be submitted to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The annual report must provide information regarding the status of the City’s General Plan and the progress on its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. The General Plan is a comprehensive planning document intended to guide development for the City.

State law requires that each adopted general plan address a minimum of seven issues (i.e., "elements"). Each element covers a certain aspect of the City’s growth and development, and must be consistent with the other elements. The seven mandatory elements include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety (including Seismic Safety). Additional optional elements may be included, as deemed appropriate by each city, depending on the unusual characteristics or development concerns of the jurisdiction. In reference to the City’s natural scenic vistas, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan includes an optional Scenic Highway element. Although each of the mandatory and optional elements are contained within the City’s document, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan addresses each element in broader categories, where the discussions regarding each mandatory element are integrated (and may overlap one another) throughout the document, as opposed to separate headings for each mandatory element.

The broader categories adopted in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan include the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Conservation and Open Space elements; SOCIO/CULTURAL ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Conservation and Open Space elements; and the URBAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation and Open Space, Safety, Seismic Safety, and Noise elements, as well as the optional Scenic Highway element. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes a separate LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT that includes additional discussion regarding conservation, open space housing and seismic safety; and a FISCAL ELEMENT, which includes discussions regarding conservation, open space, and transportation (trails and bikeways). Finally, the City has an adopted HOUSING ELEMENT document, which was updated in 1992. However, in December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, and has been coordinating with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to certify the document.

The Annual Report individually illustrates each of the seven mandatory elements of the rather than the broader categories. Each element is provides a list of actions taken by the City during calendar year 2000 through June 31, 2001, followed by a reference to the appropriate policy that is implemented by the action. The full text of each policy and goal implemented begins on page 12 of this report.

STATUS OF THE GENERAL PLAN

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 in response to high-density development proposals along the scenic coastal bluffs that help define the character of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Subsequently, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan was prepared and adopted on June 26, 1975. The adopted goals related to minimizing density along the coastal bluff areas, maintaining the rural character of the community, recognizing and managing unique resources, and identifying and protecting areas with significant development constrains such as sloped areas and areas of geologic instability. These goals of the City are the same today.

Although the General Plan has not been updated, a total of 18 amendments have been made, which are summarized on the following page. The General Plan has been implemented through the City’s Development Code, which was revised in May 1997. The revisions include stringent design review and neighborhood compatibility standards that are designed to serve as effective implementation tools for the General Plan. The revisions also incorporated provisions and criteria for the construction of second units on single-family residential properties.

The City’s population has grown by only 5,145 since incorporation 28 years ago. Further, the City’s single-family housing units have increased by only 241 units between 1990 and 2000, which demonstrates the consistency of development in the City with the low density and rural character goals and policies contained in the General Plan.

In December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, which was forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. After addressing HCD comments, on June 29, 2001, the City was notified that the revised Draft Housing Element "meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law" and thus will be in full compliance with State Law when formally adopted by the City and submitted to HCD for final review. It is anticipated that the Housing Element will be reviewed, adopted and certified by the City Council in August 2001.

The actions taken by the City during the calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001 are consistent with the goals and policies contained within the City’s General Plan. The City continues to implement these goals and policies with decisions that balance community needs, property rights, and the health and welfare of the general public. The City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff continue to adhere to a vision for the City: to promote a well informed educated public with regard to City issues, problems, and services; a friendly responsive and competent City government; a safe community in which to live and work; a community with a sound economic base; a sound financial base to support and maintain vital City services; reductions to long-term public infrastructure costs within the City; and, a well maintained, balanced, and aesthetically pleasing community.

ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN

No.

Location

Description

Date

2

Tract 28750 – Peacock Ridge and Highridge Road

Change land use designation, from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to RS 4-6 DU/Acre

10-4-77

3

Coastal Zone

Establish regulations for development in the Coastal Zone

12-19-78

4

Tract 27832, Lots 1-8 Indian Valley Road

Change non-conforming land use from Single-family to Multi-family

9-5-78

5

  1. Ave. Esplendida & Ave. Classica
  2. Indian Valley Rd. & Armaga Spring Road

Change land use from Institutional to RS 2-4 DU/Acre on two former school sites

10-2-79

6

980 Silver Spur Road

Change land use from Commercial Office to Commercial Retail – remove Natural Overlay Control District

6-17-80

9

City Wide

Amend Housing Element Policies

9-23-81

10

Abalone Cove Shoreline Park

Change land use from Agriculture to Commercial Recreational & amend Coastal Plan to allow visitor serving uses in Coastal Zone

4-20-82

11

Paseo Del Mar at La Rotunda

Change land use from Institutional to RS 1 DU/Acre

9-7-82

12

(Golden Cove) PV Drive West at Hawthorne Blvd.

Change land use from Commercial Retail to RS 6-12 DU/Acre

8-7-84

13

Ladera Linda

32201 Forrestal Drive

Change land use from Institutional to RS 2-4 DU/Acre

9-7-82

14

Eastview Annexation

Amend General Plan to include policies/land use designations for Eastview Annexation

9-7-82

16

28041 Hawthorne Blvd.

Change land use designation from Res to Commercial

9-13-88

18

City Wide

Housing Element Update

9-18-90

20

City Wide

Amendment to the Housing Element

8-18-92

21

City Wide

Amend the General Plan to eliminate non-conforming auto service stations

11-3-93

22

City Wide

Amend the General Plan to incorporate the trail and bikeway policy from the Conceptual Trails Plan

11-6-91

23

3108, 6118, 6124 PV Drive South

Change land use designation from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to Commercial Office

3-4-97

24

5325 Ironwood and 5303 Bayridge

Change land use designation from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to RS 1 DU/5-Acres

3-17-98

Notes: Amendment Nos. 1, 7, and 17 were withdrawn
Amendment No. 8 was tabled in 1982 indefinitely
Amendment Nos. 15 and 19 were denied


ACTIONS TAKEN THROUGH JUNE 31, 2001, TO IMPLEMENT GENERAL PLAN

Listed below are actions taken by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes towards implementation of the General Plan during the 2000 calendar year, including actions taken through June 31, 2001. Past implementation reports have reported on the actions taken during calendar year; however, the City will commence reporting on a fiscal year rather than a calendar year.

Although the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan contains broader categories, each of the required elements is contained within these broad categories. Page one of this report indicates where each mandatory element is included within the City’s General Plan. As such, the following information is intended to specify and highlight each mandatory element, with a brief definition and the actions taken to implement the General Plan. The applicable policy number and page number where each policy can be found in the General Plan follows each action. However, a list of each policy as specified in the General Plan and referenced in this document, begins on Page 12 of this report.

By mandatory element, the following actions occurred:

  1. Land Use Element

The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, businesses, industry, open space, natural resources, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal services, and other categories of public and private use. This element serves as the central framework for the entire plan and is intended to correlate all land uses into a set of coherent development policies.

    • Continued implementation of the comprehensively revised Development Code through the processing of relevant development applications. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 1-5 and 10-18 on Page 78, and Policy Nos. 7 and 8, Page 175)

    • Allowed the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on a 1.16-acre parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by Ride-to-Fly, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

    • Allowed the keeping of up to 17 horses for a riding training and education for youths between the ages 8 and 20 years old on a 13.78-acre vacant parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by the Pony Club, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

    • Approved miscellaneous minor revisions to the Ocean Trails project consisting of 75 single-family residences and an 18-hole golf course. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13 and 15, Page 78)

    • Approved minor miscellaneous revisions to the Oceanfront Estates project consisting of 79 single-family residences. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13, and 15, Page 78)

    • Approved the construction of a new, one-story, 15,099 square foot Montessori School for preschool students and students in grades K to 6 for a maximum total of 240 students, 20 teachers (2 per classroom) and 6 support staff members. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)

    • Approved the installation of various antenna panels for cellular telephones and personal communication systems on property throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Goal on page preceding Page 101; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138)

    • Approved the construction a new 665 square foot hand car wash/vacuum area; a 600 square foot trellis seating area; a 180 square foot detail canopy; and a new 9 square foot car wash sign. (Urban Environment Policy No. 2 and 7, Page 85)

    • Approved a conditional use permit for the operation of a Montessori School at the former Safeway grocery store located in the Golden Cove Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)
  1. Circulation/Transportation Element

The Circulation/Transportation Element serves as an infrastructure plan and must be correlated with the Land Use Element. This element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, trails, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.

    • Continued allocation of Proposition A funds for bus stop shelter maintenance and improvements, the PV Transit/Dial-a-Ride programs and the Municipal Area Express (MAX) Transit system. (Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55; Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 4 and 5, Page 137; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Continued implementation of the City-wide Residential Street Overlay program to conduct studies to identify streets that require maintenance, upgrades and/or improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Allocated Gas Tax funds for street slurry seal, and street and sidewalk repair throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

    • Continued the construction of storm drain improvements throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112)

    • Commenced the construction on the Abalone Cove Sewer System project. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112)

    • Completed the design on the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

    • Constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West and a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

    • Constructed improvements to the City’s arterial roadway network in accordance with the recommendations of the Pavement Management Program. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

 

  1. Open Space Element, and
  2. Conservation Element

The Open Space Element is the plan for the "comprehensive and long range preservation and conservation of open space land…" (Govt. Code Section 65563). It must specify plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, for managing the production of resources, for outdoor recreation, and for public health and safety.

The Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including water, forests, soils, waterways, wildlife, and mineral deposits. It may consider issues such as flood control, water and air pollution, erosion, conversion of farmland, endangered species, and habitats.

    • Entered into an agreement to purchase a combined total of 722 acres of open space land in Upper Filiorum and Portuguese Bend. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45, and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78)

    • Purchased 98 acres of open space land known as the Barkentine property, with Measure ‘A’ funds. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 7 and 14, Page 45)

    • Completed design of the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element- Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

    • Continued participation in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program with the State Department of Fish and Game, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 4, 7, and 14, Page 45)

    • Continued use of recycling funds to allocate and implement the beautification grants and the "Recycler of the Month" programs. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

    • Continued the installation of recycling containers at various City parks and facilities. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

    • Completed the approved development project of Lower Hesse Park. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99)

    • Co-sponsored various nature walks and hikes conducted by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy at various locations throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

    • Monitored the development of the trails approved as part of the construction of the Ocean Trails and the Ocean Front Estates development projects. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99; Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

    • Monitored the implementation of the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 78)

    • Implemented docent-led hikes through the trails constructed at the Ocean Trails. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

    • Accepted the equestrian and pedestrian trails constructed throughout the Seabreeze development project (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

    • The Recreation and Parks Committee, in conjunction with the Planning Department, continued the review of short and long-term improvements to trails on the City’s Forrestal Property. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 11, Page 137)

    • Entered into a formal agreement with the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to re-vegetate, operate and maintain the City’s Forrestal Property. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45; Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 137)

 

  1. Safety/Seismic Safety Element

The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, floor, and fire hazards. The Safety Element may also contain a broader range of safety-related issues which may be locally relevant, such as the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, power failure, and vehicle accidents, and policing. The Seismic Safety Element establishes policies and procedures to protect the community from risks associated with earthquake hazards. State Law requires this element with the Safety Element.

    • Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Coordinated holiday sobriety checkpoints with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175)

    • Continued the services of crossing guards in neighborhoods surrounding schools. (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175)

    • Renewed agreements with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and Fire Departments for law enforcement, fire protection and paramedic services. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 3-5, 11, and 13, Page 175)

    • Coordinated with the Los Angeles County Weed Abatement District for fire hazard and fuel management reductions. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 2 and 6, Page 175)

    • Continued Risk Management Programs with the Emergency Response Team, which is consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175)

    • Continued to enforce the City’s Development Code and the Uniform Building Code, which include detailed geologic review requirements. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175)

 

  1. Noise Element

The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use distribution, including current and projected noise level calculations for major noise sources.

    • Continued the implementation of the Municipal Code regulating hours of construction and operation of mechanical equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187)

    • Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

  1. Housing Element

The Housing Element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. This element identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs and contains a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. In adopting this element, issues such as economic, environmental and fiscal factors, as well as community goals set forth in the General Plan must be considered.

    • Continued the City’s formal Code Enforcement Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78)

    • Continued the implementation of the Home Improvement Program to provide grants and/or deferred loans to eligible low and moderate income homeowners for necessary minor home repairs, as well as repairs to correct building and safety code deficiencies. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78)

    • Approved a Draft Housing Element and forwarded the document to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department for comment (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78)

    • Purchased approximately 19-acres for potential new affordable housing units, using Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds. (Urban Environment Goal, page preceding Page 57)

    • Accepted $596,000 of in-lieu of affordable housing fees from the developer of the Ocean Front Estates development project. (Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241)

 

SPECIFIC PLANS

A Specific Plan is a tool for implementation of the General Plan and contains development goals and guidelines for specified areas and/or districts within the City. To date, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted four Specific Plans, including the Coastal Specific Plan, which addresses land use and development within the City’s Coastal Zone (all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South), as well as three Specific Plan districts along the Western Avenue commercial corridor. Staff is in the process of combining the three specific plans that govern Western Avenue, into one reference document, which is expected to be more user-friendly. Since the text, issues, policies, and standards will not be changed, a specific plan amendment will not be required. Nonetheless, by Specific Plan District, the following actions occurred during calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001:

Coastal Specific Plan

Certified in 1981, the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan provides specific development guidelines and standards for all land located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. The lands have been classified by Sub-regions (1-8), with specific development criteria provided, based on the unique character of each Sub-region.

  • Within Sub-region five, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South, containing a parking area and signage pertaining to the immediate natural environment. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)
  • Within Sub-region one, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)
  • Continued monitoring the development of trails implemented with the construction of the Ocean Trails (Sub-region seven and eight) and the Ocean Front Estates (Sub-region one) development projects (Policy Nos. 1 and 2, Page U-28 of the Coastal Specific Plan).

Specific Plan District No. II

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 28821 – 28947 Western Avenue (southwest corner of Caddington Drive and Western Avenue) – The Terraces Shopping Center. Specific Plan No. II was adopted in 1985 by the City Council.

    • Updated the Sign Program for The Terraces Shopping Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85)

Specific Plan District No. III

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29505 – 29701 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. III was adopted in 1986 by the City Council.

    • Constructed the 4,000 square foot automotive use (tire store) and a 2,240 square foot retail/restaurant building at Western Avenue and Summerland Drive, and miscellaneous improvements to the public right-of-way, as approved by Specific Plan Amendment No. 10. (Policy Nos. 3 and 7, Page 85)

Specific Plan District No. IV

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29019 – 29421 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. IV was adopted in 1987 by the City Council.

    • No proposals for development were submitted to the City during 2000 and through June 31, 2001.

GOALS & POLICIES IMPLEMENTED DURING 2000 THROUGH JUNE 31, 2001

Below is a summary list of the General Plan Policies and Goals, and relevant Specific Plan Policies that were implemented during the 2000 calendar year and through June 31, 2001, as specified in the actions of the 2000-2001 Annual Report.

Land Use Element

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 78: Retain the present predominance of single family residences found throughout the community, while continuing to maintain the existing variety of housing types.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 78: Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 78: Prepare development codes with quality standards, but flexible new technology and techniques of building.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 5, Page 78: Support and assist in enforcement of "open housing" regulations to prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 10, Page 78: Require all developments which propose open space to be held in private ownership to provide legal guarantees to protect these areas from further development.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 78: Control the alteration of natural terrain.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 12, Page 78: Encourage energy conservation in housing design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No 13, Page 78: Require proposals for development of areas which impact corridor related views to analyzed the site conditions and address the preservation of such views.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 78: Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 15, Page 78: Enforce height controls to further lessen the possibility for view obstructions.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 78: Require proposed housing to show how it ensures the existence of neighboring site privacy, while simultaneously providing privacy to the occupants of the proposed units.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78: Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 18, Page 78: Allow no further development involving human occupancy within the active landslide area.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 85: Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 85: Require the commercial activity, where a commercial area would be nonconforming with adjoining activities, to provide the necessary mitigation measures.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 85: Require commercial sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85: Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining residential areas.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1: Locate schools on or near major arterials or collectors, and provide adequate parking and automobile access.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6: Review the location and site design of future institutional uses to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites.

Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138: Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 7, Page 175: Implement reasonable house numbering and consistent street naming systems.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 8, Page 175: Coordinate with the Fire Department to determine the feasibility of providing emergency access to the end points of long cul-de-sacs.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 16, Page 175: Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and numbers of animals and balance the interest of animals owners and persons whose welfare is affected.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57: The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the needs of its citizens.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: To ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment.

Circulation/Transportation Element

Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55: Act to enhance mobility within the neighborhood, mobility within the City, and on the Peninsula as a whole.

Urban Environment Element Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112: Require developers to install necessary flood control devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazard induced by proposed upstream developments.

Urban Environment Element Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112: Require the installation of sewers in existing development if alternative sewerage systems endanger public health, safety and welfare.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 4, Page 137: Encourage, together with other [entities], to improve public transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the region.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 5, Page 137: Explore the establishment of an independent bus system or contact for service with an independent municipal transportation agency.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187: Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., land strip landscaping, site design).

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187: Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

(Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192): Develop well located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to encourage the increased mobility of residents through the development of an adequate transportation system.

Open Space Element, and Conservation Element

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 45: Consider in more detail natural environment factors in subsequent factors in subsequent specific area studies as an integral part of these studies.

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45: Encourage study of and funding to preserve unusual flora and fauna.

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45: Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state to the maximum extent possible in all existing and proposed developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies and encourage the re-establishment of appropriate native plants.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55: Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens, both individually and in groups.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78: Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 99: Provide access to all public recreational land.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99: Continue to sponsor recreation programs within the City considering the diversity of needs.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99: Establish ordinances to require builders and developers to provide lands and/or funds for acquisition and development of land for recreational use.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99: Encourage public use of institutional recreation facilities, where possible.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112: Take an active interest in waste management and recycling programs and offer assistance to groups attempting to offer solutions to the problem of waste.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137: Design path and trail networks to reflect both a local and regional demand, while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 7, Page 137: Require all path and trail networks to be in separate rights-of-way.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 11, Page 137: Further investigate possible funding sources for acquisition, development and maintenance of paths and trails.

Safety/Seismic Safety Element

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175: Promote the education and awareness pertaining to all hazards which affect residents.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175: Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations which contain design and construction standards based upon specified levels of risk and hazard.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 3, Page 175: Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure back-up law enforcement assistance in emergency situations.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 4, Page 175: Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities throughout all areas of the City.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 5, Page 175: Cooperate with the fire protection agency to determine the feasibility of utilizing the existing helicopter "pad" at the Nike Site for a water refueling location.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 6, Page 175: Develop stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high fire hazard potential.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175: Ensure that local, County, State, and Federal health, safety, and sanitation laws are enforced.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 11, Page 175: Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are available to all areas of the city.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 13, Page 175: Encourage the availability of paramedic rescue service.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175: Be prepared to implement contingency plans to cope with a major disaster.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

Noise Element

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187: Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., land strip landscaping, site design).

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187: Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

Housing Element

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57: It shall be the goal of the City to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78: Cooperate with County, State, and Federal agencies, monitoring all housing programs offered, and studying their desirability of implementation in the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78: Initiate strong code enforcement programs so that scattered housing problems are solved rapidly to prevent even small-area deterioration.

Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241: Encourage private contributions and donations to the City as alternatives to public funding.

Specific Plans

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85: Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining areas.

(Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192): Develop well located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed.

Policy No. 1, Page U-28: Encourage future residential development to provide recreational facilities to meet the needs of their residents.

Policy No. 2, Page U-28: Encourage new developments adjoining public trails to design internal trails to link with the public trails.

Policy No. 4, Page U-28: Require all parks to provide adequate parking within their boundaries to meet their projected carrying capacities.

 

#####

2000-2001 Annual Report Prepared by:
Eduardo A. Schonborn, aicp, Associate Planner
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Submitted for:
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State of California


3. Peninsula Seniors Grant. (Petru)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NEW CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN THE REMAINING BALANCE OF A $25,000 GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002.


TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:PENINSULA SENIORS GRANT

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2001- ; authorizing the City Manager to execute a new contract with the California Department of Aging to obtain the remaining balance of a $25,000 grant for the Peninsula Seniors during FY 01-02.

BACKGROUND

Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal was successful in including funds in the 2000-01 State Budget for a $25,000 grant to the Peninsula Seniors. The grant, which is administered through the California Department of Aging, included $15,000 for the Peninsula Seniors to conduct the recently completed Needs Assessment Study and $10,000 to supplement current programs and services offered by the Peninsula Seniors, including legal, financial, tax and estates counseling; low-vision and hearing impairment support classes; weekly educational and informational lectures; and senior exercise classes.

In order to obtain the grant funds, the City was required to enter into a contract with the California Department of Aging. The contract enabled the City to act as the conduit for the funds between the state and the Peninsula Seniors. On March 20, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-26, authorizing staff to enter into such a contract for FY 00-01.

DISCUSSION

During FY 00-01, the City successfully processed a $13,647 reimbursement for the Peninsula Seniors. The remainder of the funds ($11,353) remains to be reimbursed during FY 01-02. Because the grant has spanned over two fiscal years, state regulations require the City to enter into a new contract with the Department of Aging for FY 01-02. One of the requirements of the new contract is that the City Council adopts another resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the new contract with the Department of Aging for the current fiscal year. To that end, the draft resolution for FY 01-02 is attached for the Council’s review.

FISCAL IMPACT

Other than the staff’s time required to process the grant application and contract paperwork, the City will not incur any other expenses in facilitating the state grant for the Peninsula Seniors.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO OBTAIN A GRANT FOR THE PENINSULA SENIORS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02

WHEREAS, Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal included funds in the 2000-01 State Budget for a grant to support the activities of the Peninsula Seniors, and,

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-26; providing proof of authorization to execute the contract with the California Department of Aging for Fiscal Year 2000-01; and,

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2001, the City received notice that the grant had been carried over into the 2001-02 State Budget Act, thus requiring the City to enter into a new contract with the California Department of Aging, as well as providing new authorization to execute the contract for the current fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with the California Department of Aging to obtain the remaining balance of a $25,000 grant for the Peninsula Seniors to complete a Needs Assessment Study and supplement current programs and services.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2001.

 

____________________________
ATTEST: MAYOR

________________
CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on March 20, 2001.

________________________________
City Clerk



4. Appointment of members to the Miraleste and Ridgecrest Recreation & Park Districts. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Make the following appointments: Miraleste Recreation & Park District: (1) Appoint Peter D. Glusac and Dawn E. Henry for a full term ending December 2, 2005. (2) Appoint Keith Harter to the unexpired term ending December 5, 2003. Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District: Appoint Victor Hansen, Gwynne Shaw and Dolores Pittelkow to a full term ending December 2, 2005.


TO:HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE MIRALESTE & RIDGECREST RECREATION & PARK DISTRICTS

RECOMMENDATION
Make the following appointments: Miraleste Recreation & Park District: (1) Appoint Peter D. Glusac and Dawn E. Henry for a full term ending December 2, 2005. (2) Appoint Keith Harter to the unexpired term ending December 5, 2003. Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District: Appoint Victor Hansen, Gwynne Shaw and Dolores Pittelkow to a full term ending December 2, 2005.

INTRODUCTION
Making these appointments will fill the vacancies left by the expiration of the term of office for certain members of these boards.

BACKGROUND
These two special districts are responsible for maintaining certain parklands, lighting, and landscaping within their boundaries. Both districts have an elected five-member board of directors that conduct the business of the district; members are elected for a four-year term of office.

Miraleste Recreation & Park District
Three of the members of this district filed nomination papers: two of those members (Glusac and Henry) will now have a full term of four years; one member (Harter) is being appointed to serve until December 5, 2003 because he was appointed mid-term to fill an unexpired term.

The County Clerk’s Office has issued a certificate stating that since three candidates were nominated for the three offices to be filled, the election scheduled for November 6, 2001 is cancelled. Pursuant to Section 10515 of the Elections Code and Section 5780.1 of the Public Resources Code, the City Council can appoint the persons nominated.

Ridgecrest Recreation & Park District
The three members (Hansen, Shaw and Pittelkow) whose terms expire this December did not file nomination papers. As in the case of the Miraleste District, the County Clerk’s Office has issued a certificate stating that the election also scheduled for November 6, 2001 is cancelled and that the City Council can appoint qualified persons to fill those positions.

The City is now in receipt of a letter from the three incumbent members of the district stating their willingness to serve on the board for another full four-year term.

CONCLUSION
The City has two special districts that have expiring terms of office on each of their governing boards. Pursuant to certain sections of the Elections Code and the Public Resources Code the City Council is empowered to appoint the persons nominated to these districts.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager





5. Informal Bid and Pre-Ordering of HDPE Pipe for the Palos Verdes South Drainage Repair Project. (Allison)


Recommendation:
Review and reconfirm by 4/5 vote the Council’s September 18th action to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive So. Drainage Repair Project.


TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:INFORMAL BID AND PRE-ORDERING OF HDPE PIPE FOR THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH DRAINAGE REPAIR PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

Review and reconfirm by a four/fifths (4/5) vote, the Council’s previous action on September 18, 2001 to authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process and pre-order HDPE drainage pipe for the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project.

BACKGROUND

On August 7, 2001, the City Council found that an emergency exists concerning the Palos Verdes Drive South Drainage Repair Project. This emergency situation will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids or the normal process of ordering the pipe. The Council authorized staff to conduct an informal bid process and to pre-order the drainage pipe that will be required for this project.

DISCUSSION

Approval of both the informal bid process and the pre-ordering of the pipe required a four-fifths (4/5) vote under Public Contract Code Section 22050(a)(1). In addition, Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1) requires that when a governing body takes action under Section 22050(a)(1), it must review that action and reaffirm it by a four-fifths vote at each subsequent regularly scheduled meeting until the action is terminated. Accordingly, because the informal bid process has not yet been completed, staff has placed this item on tonight’s agenda.

As Council will recall, staff proposed the use of (HDPE) pipe for this project because it is more flexible and lighter than traditional corrugated metal pipe (CMP). These characteristics are well suited for the pipe that will be laid in the canyon exposed.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean Allison, Public Works Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager



6. Arterial Rehabilitation Program: Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards. (Allison)

 

Recommendation: (1) Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company to overlay portions of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work, thereby approving a $697,987 construction budget. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company. (3) Award a $43,600 professional services agreement to DMc for construction management and inspection services. (4) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for a professional services agreement with DMc Engineering.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:ARTERIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM: CRENSHAW AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARDS

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a $634,534 construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company to overlay portions of Crenshaw Boulevard and Hawthorne Boulevard, and authorize staff to spend an additional $63,453 for possible extra work; for a total authorization of $697,987.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company.

  3. Award a Professional Services Contract to DMc Engineering Inc, for Construction Management and Inspection Services for an amount not to exceed $43,600.

  4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.

BACKGROUND

The adopted FY 2001-2002 budget includes $880,000 for the Annual Arterial Rehabilitation Program. The city’s pavement management program identifies portions of Crenshaw Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Peek Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Verde Ridge Road to Dupre Drive) as the arterial roadways to be rehabilitated this fiscal year. Engineering plans to overlay these two roadways have been prepared.

While the plans were being prepared, it was determined that the cost to overlay the recommended portions of both roadways exceeds the amount provided for this project in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget. However because there are unbudgeted, non-General Fund roadway funds available, and because the engineering design was already completed, the Public Works Department advertised a construction contract that was segmented in a manner which allows the City Council to decide this evening the size of the Arterial Overlay Program they wish to complete this fiscal year.

If the City Council wishes to award a construction project in accordance with the adopted budget they should adopt the recommended action. If however, the City Council wishes to move forward with a slightly larger project, which utilizes available unbudgeted non-general fund roadway funds, Alternative One or Two should be adopted.

The three options available are as follows:

 

Recommended Action (Base Bid)

Alternative One

Alternative Two

Portion of Hawthorne Blvd

Dupre Drive to Crest Road

Dupre Drive to Indian Valley Drive

Dupre Drive to Verde Ridge Road

Portion of Crenshaw Blvd

Crest Road to Indian Peek

Crest Road to Indian Peek

Crest Road to Indian Peek

Total Cost

$741,587

$930,021

$1,067,399

Needed Budget Adjustment

None

$50,021

$187,399


The funding sources for the base bid and the two alternatives are the Gas Tax Fund, Proposition C, Proposition A, Congestion Management Funds, and a County of Los Angeles grant.

If the City Council adopts either Alternative One or Two, the project will begin and staff will bring a budget resolution back to the City Council for authorization of the additional funding.

DISCUSSION

On August 22, 2001, staff received the following construction bids:

BID SUMMARY

Construction Companies

Base Bid

Alternative One

Alternative Two

Sully-Miller

$634,534

$800,338

$919,727

Excel Paving

$653,345

$813,324

$934,628

Sequel

$653,976

$817,926

$934,083


All three contractors have the experience and financial solvency necessary to successfully complete the required work. It is recommended that the contract be awarded to Sully-Miller Contracting Company because they submitted the lowest responsible, responsive bid. Regardless of whether the base bid contract or either alternative contract is awarded, Sully-Miller Contracting Company is the lowest responsible responsive bidder.

This project will require inspection and contract management services. Accordingly, staff solicited proposals from three qualified engineering firms. Staff received proposals from Harris & Associates and DMc Engineering. Based on an evaluation/rating of each proposal and available staffing, DMc Engineering is the most qualified firm. Therefore, staff recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering. The amount of that contract will vary with the size of the construction contract that is awarded.

This project will utilize rubberized asphalt. This is the first time that the City has used rubberized asphalt in a Public Works project. Rubberized asphalt is an environmental friendly product; it utilizes used tires in its mix. Rubberized asphalt will be more durable and will stay a dark rich color longer than conventional asphalt. In addition traffic will generate less noise with a rubberized asphalt roadway than with a conventional asphalt roadway.

This project will construct concrete pads within the roadway at all bus stops. Asphalt roadways generally deteriorate more rapidly and require more maintenance adjacent to bus stops due to the heavy loading from the buses. The new concrete pads will significantly improve the durability of the roadway. Proposition A funds will be utilized for the concrete pads.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will award the base bid construction contract and corresponding professional service contract to overlay portions of Crenshaw Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Peek Road) and Hawthorne Boulevard (Dupre Drive to Crest Road). This recommendation will result in a construction project at a cost consistent with the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget.

If however the City Council wishes to utilize available unbudgeted, non-general fund roadway funds together with the funding in the adopted budget, then a larger project can be awarded and one of the two alternative actions should be adopted.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

Alternative One:

  1. Award an $800,338 Construction Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, for the overlay of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, and authorize staff to spend an additional $80,033 for possible extra work; for a total authorization $880,371.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company.

  3. Award a $49,650 Professional Services Agreement to DMc Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services.

  4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.

  5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution amending the current project budget to include an additional $50,021 to cover the cost of overlaying the second segment of Hawthorne Boulevard (Crest Road to Indian Valley Road). Staff has investigated potential sources of funding and has determined that sufficient Proposition C Funds are available.

Alternative Action Number Two:

  1. Award a $919,727 Construction Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, for the overlay of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards, and authorize staff to spend an additional $91,972 for possible extra work; thereby approving a $1,011,699 construction budget.

  2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Company.

  3. Award a $55,700 Professional Services Agreement to DMc Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services.

  4. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with DMc Engineering.

  5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution amending the current project budget to include an additional $187,399 to cover the cost of overlaying Segments Two and Three of Hawthorne Boulevard (Crest Road to Verde Ridge Road). Staff has investigated potential sources of funding and has determined that a combination of available Proposition C, Gas Tax and Congestion Management Funds are available.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of the recommended option, and two alternatives is summarized below.

Item Description

Overlay of Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevards

  • Construction:

Crenshaw and Segment One of Hawthorne Boulevard

Crenshaw and Segments One and Two of Hawthorne Boulevard

Crenshaw and Segments One, Two and Three of Hawthorne Boulevard

Construction Contract

$634,534

$800,338

$919,727

Contingency Budget

$63,453

$80,033

$91,972

Total Construction Costs

$697,987

$880,371

$1,011,699

Inspection Services

$43,600

$49,650

$55,700

Total Project Costs

$741,587

$930,021

$1,067,399


  • Funding Source
     

County Grant

$376,000

$376,000

$376,000

Prop C Funds

$195,587

$384,021

$454,399

Prop A Funds

$90,000

$90,000

$90,000

Congestion Management Funds

$80,000

$80,000

$120,000

Gas Tax

0

$0

$27,000

Total Funding

$741,587

$930,021

$1,067,399


Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment: Exhibit Map




7. Guidelines for Residential Undergrounding District. (Allison)

Recommendations: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUND DISTRICTS.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICTS

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution 2001 - , a resolution of the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes establishing guidelines for residential undergrounding districts.

DISCUSSIONS

On July 17, 2001 the City Council adopted guidelines for residential undergrounding districts. A copy of the proposed guidelines is attached. This staff report adopts a City Council resolution that memorializes those guidelines.

Staff was requested to make two modifications to the guidelines that have been incorporated. The guidelines have been modified to make it clear that property owners are responsible for the cost of the undergrounding. The guidelines have also been modified to emphasize the payment deferral program offered through the State of California.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the staff recommendation will memorialize in resolution form the guidelines for the residential undergrounding program.

FISCAL IMPACT

The estimated administrative cost of this program has been included in the adopted FY 2001 – 02 budget. The funding source is the General Fund.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Resolution
Proposed Guidelines

 


RESOLUTION NO. 2001-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO FORM AN UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND TO REQUEST THE CITY TO ADVANCE THE FUNDS RELATING TO THE FORMATION COSTS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings.

A. Because few public improvements can enhance the appearance of a neighborhood as much as the removal of overhead wires and utility poles, many residents in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") have expressed interest in initiating utility undergrounding projects which will remove such wires and poles from their neighborhoods.

B. While the City wishes to support such projects, it does not have sufficient resources to fully fund such projects with public moneys. Therefore, the primary financial burden of an undergrounding project must be borne by the homeowners who benefit from the project.

C. The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10000 and following) permits the City to create assessment districts to finance undergrounding projects. However, before an assessment district can be created, a number of technical and financial studies, including the preparation of a detailed engineer’s report, must occur.

D. In order to facilitate the creation of assessment districts and undergrounding projects in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support, the City wishes to create a procedure through which homeowners in a neighborhood may request that the City provide advance funding of the district formation costs, including the cost of technical studies.

Section 2. Intent. The intent of this program is to (i) provide a procedure for homeowners to request advance funding of the assessment district formation costs associated with an undergrounding project and (ii) ensure that such funding is only granted in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support for an undergrounding project.

Section 3. Definitions. For the purposes of this resolution, the following terms are defined as follows:

"Act" shall mean the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10000 and following);

"Assessment District" shall mean an Assessment District formed pursuant to the Act for the purpose of funding an Undergrounding Project;

"Director of Public Works" shall mean the City’s Director of Public Works or his or her designee;

"Formation Costs" shall mean costs associated with the formation of an Assessment District which must be paid prior to the receipt of the assessment proceeds or bond proceeds associated with the Assessment District. Formation Costs include, but are not limited to, the costs associated with the preparation of engineer’s reports and similar necessary technical studies;

"Neighborhood Committee" shall mean a committee formed pursuant to Section 6 of this Resolution;

"Petition Date" shall mean the date on which Petition Forms are distributed pursuant to Section 7 of this Resolution.

"Petition Fee" shall mean the fee referred to in Section 10 of this Resolution, if any, and established by future action of the City Council;

"Petition Form" shall mean a petition form in substantially the form established by the Director of Public Works pursuant to Section 9 of this Resolution or, if no such form is established, a petition form meeting the requirements of Section 9 of this Resolution;

"Potentially Affected Parcel" shall mean a parcel located within the boundaries of a proposed Assessment District that may be subject to an assessment levied in connection with such Assessment District, should it be formed;

"Undergrounding Project" shall mean a construction project the primary purpose of which is to remove existing overhead electric or communications facilities and to replace these facilities with underground electric or communication facilities constructed at the same or different location;

Section 4. Relation to Municipal Improvement Act. The process established by this Resolution shall be supplemental to the procedures required by the Act and by Section 5896.1 and following of the California Streets and Highways Code. The satisfaction of any requirement of this procedure shall not satisfy any requirement of state law.

Section 5. Procedure Mandatory for Undergrounding Projects. The City will not advance fund Formation Costs except where the requirements of this Resolution have been satisfied.

Section 6. Formation of Neighborhood Committee. Prior to distributing Petition Forms relating to a proposed Assessment District, the property owners who intend to circulate the Petition Form must form a Neighborhood Committee. Such Neighborhood Committee is deemed formed when a list of the members of the Committee is submitted to the Director of Public Works. The Neighborhood Committee must be composed of at least five property owners.

Section 7. Notice Requirements. Before the City Council will consider funding Formation Costs, the Neighborhood Committee for a proposed Assessment District must provide the City with proof that it has mailed a Petition Form to the mailing addresses of the current record owner of each Potentially Affected Parcel. Such proof may be in the form of duplicate copies of each mailing made, or in such other form as is acceptable to the Director of Public Works. Each Petition Form sent pursuant to this petition must bear the same Petition Date. The City will assist the Neighborhood Committee in obtaining a list of record owners.

Section 8. Petition Requirements. Before the City Council will consider funding Formation Costs, the Director of Public Works must receive fully completed Petition Forms from the record owners of sixty-five percent (65%) of the Potentially Affected Parcels. A separate Petition Form must be submitted for each Potentially Affected Parcel, regardless of common ownership. Each Petition Form must be accompanied by the payment of the Petition Fee. No Petition Form will be accepted by the Director of Public Works until the Petition Fee has been established by action of the City Council.

Section 9. Petition Form. Each Petition Form must include all of the following information:

(a) A map of the proposed Assessment District;

(b) A brief description of the proposed Undergrounding Project;

(c) A statement that the cost of any Undergrounding Project will be assessed against properties within the Assessment District that will benefit from the Project;

(d) A statement that the costs of engineering, legal, and other incidental expenses, including expenses advance funded by the City, will be included in the assessment;

(e) A statement that the assessment against each benefitting parcel could be $20,000 or more;

(f) A statement that, each parcel owner would, in addition to being responsible for the payment of the assessment, also be responsible for the cost of converting their property’s service connection so that it may connect with the undergrounded services. This statement shall also note that the typical cost of such conversion is $5,000 or more;

(g) A statement that there will be another petitioning proceess prior to the actual formation of the Assessment District and that the creation of the Assessment District also will be subject to majority protest pursuant to a balloting conducted in accordance with Proposition 218;

(h) A statement that any parcel owner may obtain a copy of the City’s Residential Utility Undergrounding Program information booklet from the Department of Public Works;

(i) A request that the City advance fund Formation Costs associated with the Assessment District;

(j) The Petition Date, and a statement that no Petition Form will be accepted by the City more than one year from the Petition Date;

(k) Spaces where the property owner may indicate his or her name, the assessor’s parcel number for his or her property, the street address of that property, and the owner’s mailing address; and

(l) A space where the property owner may sign in order to indicate his or her support of the Undergrounding Project and the formation of the Assessment District.

The Director of Public Works may create a required form for the Petition Form. Such form may include any information, in addition to that required by this Section, that the Director of Public Works may deem appropriate.

Section 10. Petition Fee. The City Council may establish, by future action, a Petition Fee. Payments of the Petition Fee shall be held by the City in a segregated account. In the event the City Council has not certified Petition Forms pursuant to Section 11 of this Resolution within one year of the Petition Date, the City Treasurer shall refund the Petition Fees associated with those Petition Forms, without interest, to the signers of the Petition forms at the mailing addresses indicated on the Petition Forms, or, if it is known to the City that the mailing address is no longer valid, at such other address as may be believed by the City to be correct.

Section 11. Council Certification. When the Director of Public Works has received Petition Forms pursuant to Section 8 of this Resolution from the owners of at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the Potentially Affected Parcels within a proposed Assessment District, the City Council may certify the Petition Forms. Such certification shall have the following effects:

a) All Petition Fees received in connection with the proposed Assessment District shall be applied towards Formation Costs of the proposed Assessment District. These Petition Fees shall not be refunded to property owners in the event no Assessment District is formed; however, if an Assessment District is formed, property owners who have paid the Petition Fee will receive a credit against their assessment for the amount of the Petition Fee paid; and

b) The City Council indicates that the requirements of this Resolution have been satisfied. Such finding shall be considered final and conclusive.

Section 12. No Obligation to Certify or Form the District. The City Council retains full and absolute discretion as to whether to certify any Petition Forms pursuant to Section 11 of this Resolution and to proceed with the process to form an undergrounding district, and may elect not to certify forms for any reason, including a determination that a Undergrounding Project would be inappropriate given the circumstances, or for no reason at all.

Section 13. No Obligation to Allocate Funds. By certifying Petition Forms pursuant to Section 11 of this Resolution, the City Council does not commit itself to the expenditure of any funds aside from those it specifically commits to expend pursuant to its future actions.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ________ day of September, 2001.

 

__________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


_________________________
City Clerk






8. July and August 2001 Treasurer’s Reports. (McLean)


Recommendation:
Receive and file.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT: JULY 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the July 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of July 2001.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $26,245,203 at July 31, 2001. This represents a $332,365 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

General Fund – The General fund cash balance decreased by over $770,000 during the month of July. The most notable non-routine cash event was the annual budgeted transfer of $500,000 to the Building Replacement Fund.

Gas Tax Fund – The Gas Tax fund cash balance decreased by approximately $87,000 primarily due to the payment of $59,000 to Silvia Construction for the FY2000-2001 slurry seal retention.

Recycling Fund – The cash balance in the Recycling fund increased by more than $110,000 during the month due to the receipt of approximately $50,000 from Waste Management for quarterly recycling fees, as well as receipt of approximately $50,000 from the Department of Conservation for annual cash-back payments.

Proposition A Fund – The cash balance in the Proposition A fund decreased by more than $146,000 during the month due to the $188,000 semi-annual payment to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority for dial-a-ride support.

CIP Fund – Cash decreased by approximately $129,000 in this fund during the month. This fluctuation is primarily due to the $83,000 FY2000-2001 overlay retention payment to Silvia Construction and the $261,000 slant drain reimbursement to Capital Pacific Homes. These payments were partially offset by the$152,833 monthly transfer from the General fund.

Building Replacement Fund – Cash increased by over $510,000 in this fund during the month of July due to receipt of the annual budgeted transfer from the General fund for $500,000.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager


TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT: AUGUST 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the August 2001 Treasurer's Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit an investment report to the City Council on at least a quarterly basis. The City has elected to submit a treasurer’s report to the Council for review each month. This report summarizes the cash activity associated with all funds of the City. A separate treasurer’s report is prepared monthly for both the Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority and is presented under separate cover before their respective governing bodies. The attached treasurer's report includes the cash activities of the City for the month of August 2001.

ANALYSIS:

The overall cash balances of the City totaled $25,593,216 at August 31, 2001. This represents a $651,987 decrease during the month. The overall decrease is a result of various factors in several individual funds of the City. These factors are discussed in detail below for each fund experiencing a noteworthy cash event.

COPS/LLESS/CLEEP Fund – This fund’s cash balance decreased by approximately $52,000 due to the payment of both the June and July installments for grant deputies.

CIP Fund – The cash balance in the CIP fund decreased by over $127,000 during the month. The most notable cash disbursements included a PVDS retention payment to Excel Paving for $90,000, a bikeways payment to PCI, Ltd. for $55,000, and a soil remediation payment to The Source Group for $28,000. These disbursements were partially offset by the monthly transfer from the General fund for $152,833.

Measure A Fund – The cash balance in the Measure A fund decreased by almost $56,000 during the month. This was primarily due to the $60,512 payment for accrued interest on the Barkentine open space property purchase.

Special Trusts Fund – The cash balance in this fund decreased by over $150,000 during the month. Cash fluctuations in the Special Trusts fund are caused by timing differences of payments to and from the City for various services including engineering and inspections. The August cash decrease was primarily due to payments to Cotton Shires & Associates on behalf of Ocean Trails and a payment to Keyser Marston Associates on behalf of the developer of the proposed Long Point Resort project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Treasurer

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager




9. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

 


PUBLIC HEARINGS:



10. Resolution Adopting a Fee in Connection with Petitions to Commence the Process to Establish an Undergrounding Assessment District. (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A FEE TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS REQUESTING ADVANCE FUNDING BY THE CITY FOR FORMATION COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2001-__.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FEE IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2001-___, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A FEE TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONS REQUESTING ADVANCE FUNDING BY THE CITY OF FORMATION COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2001."

INTRODUCTION

Adoption of this resolution will establish a fee for filing petitions, pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-____, requesting that the City advance formation costs for the establishment of an undergrounding assessment district. The purpose of the procedure and fee is to ensure that the City only expends funds in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support for an undergrounding project.

BACKGROUND

Many homeowners in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") have expressed interest in the undergrounding of the electric and communications facilities in their neighborhoods to enhance the aesthetic appearance of those areas. The City wishes to support such projects, but has limited funds available. Although the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (California Streets and Highways Code Section 10000 and following) authorizes the City to create assessment districts to finance undergrounding projects, Proposition 218 requires any formation of an assessment district to be submitted to a vote of the affected property owners. Additionally, certain pre-formation technical and financial studies, including the preparation of a detailed engineer’s report, must be prepared before the formation process is commenced. Because of the costs associated with these pre-formation studies, the City wishes to ensure there is ample neighborhood support before City funds are advanced to commence the process.

Accordingly, the Council previously considered and conceptually approved procedures that govern the formation of undergrounding districts. These procedures are memorialized in Resolution No. __, which was considered by the City Council earlier this evening (hereafter the "Procedure Resolution"), establishing the process through which homeowners in a neighborhood may request that the City provide advance funding of the district formation costs, including the cost of technical studies.

DISCUSSION

The Procedure Resolution established a procedure for homeowners to request advance funding of the assessment district formation costs associated with an undergrounding project while ensuring that such funding is only granted in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support for an undergrounding project. Section 8 of said Procedure Resolution requires the petition forms be filed from sixty-five percent (65%) of the parcels in the proposed undergrounding assessment district before the City Council will consider funding formation costs associated with the district. A separate Petition Form must be submitted for each Potentially Affected Parcel, regardless of common ownership. Each Petition Form must be accompanied by the payment of the Petition Fee.

Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution authorizes the City Council to establish the amount of the Petition Fee by separate resolution. The proposed petition fee will be one hundred dollars ($100) per petition (i.e. per parcel). The purpose of petition fee is to partially cover the Formation Costs to be incurred as a result of the submission of the Petition Forms and to discourage petitions requesting advance funding of the formation costs for proposed undergrounding assessment districts, which do not have serious support from the property owners in the neighborhood. The petition fee will be kept in a segregated City account to be used exclusively for funding Formation Costs. If the City Council does not certify Petition Forms within the period required by the Procedure Resolution, then the Petition Fees associated with those Petition Forms will be returned to the fee payers without interest. In the event the City Council ultimately forms an Assessment District as the result of the submission of Petition Forms, then those property owners who have paid Fees in connection with the Assessment District will receive a credit against their assessment for the amount of the Fees that are paid.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 66018, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing before it may adopt the resolution establishing the petition fee. The public hearing was duly noticed by publication in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 6062a. After the presentation of the staff report, the City Council should open the public hearing and receive testimony from the public for and against the proposed fee. At the conclusion of public testimony, the City Council should close the public hearing and conduct its deliberations with respect to this resolution and the proposed petition fee.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will establish the fee required by Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution.

Submitted by,
Dean Allison,.Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Resolution

 


RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTING A PETITION FEE IN CONNECTION
WITH PETITIONS REQUESTING ADVANCE FUNDING
OF FORMATION COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2001-___ .

WHEREAS, many homeowners in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") have expressed interest in the undergrounding of the electric and communications facilities in their neighborhood; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, pursuant to its Resolution No. 2001-__ (the "Procedure Resolution"), has established a program to (i) provide a procedure for homeowners to request advance funding of the assessment district formation costs associated with an undergrounding project and (ii) ensure that such funding is only granted in neighborhoods where there is strong homeowner support for an undergrounding project; and

WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution provides that the City may establish a Petition Fee (the "Fee") to be charged to property owners submitting petition forms ("Petition Forms") requesting (i) the establishment of an assessment district for the purpose of funding the undergrounding of utilities and (ii) the advance funding by the City of the formation costs associated with the formation of such a district (the "Formation Costs"); and

WHEREAS, the purpose of such fee is to partially cover the Formation Costs to be incurred as a result of the submission of the Petition Forms and such fee will be kept in a segregated account to be used exclusively for this purpose; and

WHEREAS, if the City Council does not certify Petition Forms within the period required by the Procedure Resolution then the Fees associated with those Petition Forms must be refunded to the fee payers without interest; and

WHEREAS, if an Assessment District is formed as the result of the submission of Petition Forms, then those property owners who have paid Fees in connection with the Assessment District will receive a credit against their assessment for the amount of the paid Fees; and;

WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice of its consideration of this Resolution in accordance with law and has held a public hearing regarding this Resolution at which all interested persons were permitted to make oral and written presentations in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings

The City Council adopts the findings made in the recitals and in Section 1 of the Procedure Resolution and incorporates these findings herein by reference.

Section 2. Adoption of Inflation Adjusted Fee

The amount of the Petition Fee established pursuant to Section 10 of the Procedure Resolution is hereby set at $________.

Section 3. Effective Date

The Petition Fee established by this resolution shall become effective immediately.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this       day of                , 2001.

 

                                                          
Mayor

ATTEST:

                                                         
City Clerk

 


REGULAR BUSINESS:



11. Ordinance No. 370 - Amendment of Municipal Code - Golf Tax. (Lynch)

Recommendation: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 370, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DENNIS McLEAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE – GOLF TAX

RECOMMENDATION:

To approve the attached ordinance, which makes a few additional minor amendments to the City’s golf tax.

BACKGROUND:

At the last Council meeting, the City Attorney presented an ordinance, which made a few minor amendments to the City’s golf tax that is set forth in Chapter 3.40 of the Municipal Code. In response to the issues that were discussed at the last City Council meeting, staff and the City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance, which includes some additional minor revisions to the golf tax that are discussed below.

Like the last version, these revisions do not address the amount of the golf tax or the issue of approval of the tax by the voters; those issues have been addressed in the ordinance that the City Council directed be submitted to the voters at the upcoming election in November.

DISCUSSION:

The attached ordinance expands the definition of "operator" to include agents, in the event the operator sells or transfers a block of tee time use of the golf course. As revised, that section now states:

"C. ‘Operator’ means the person who is the proprietor of the golf course, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. When the operator performs some or all of his/her functions through an agent of any type or character, other than an employee, including an agent whose only duty is to sell or resell the opportunity to use a golf course, the agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purpose of this chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as the principal."

In addition, paragraph G has been added to Section 3.40.040 to require any operator to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles that are acceptable to the City’s Finance Director, serving in the capacity of the tax administrator:

"G. Any operator shall maintain accounting records, using generally accepted accounting principles, that are acceptable to the tax administrator to compute, collect, report and remit the golf tax. Such accounting records shall include, but not be limited to, vouchers or any other methods that the tax administrator may require to verify the golf fees that are being charged, whether by sale or resale, and the golf tax that is owed to the city."

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance by title only, waive further reading and introduce the attached ordinance.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager


ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S GOLF TAX
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 3.40.020 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending paragraph C thereof to read as follows:

"C. ‘Operator’ means the person who is the proprietor of the golf course, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. When the operator performs some or all of his/her functions through an agent of any type or character, other than an employee, including an agent whose only duty is to sell or resell the opportunity to use a golf course, the agent shall also be deemed an operator for the purpose of this chapter and shall have the same duties and liabilities as the principal."

Section 2. Section 3.40.40 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"3.40.040Tax collection.

"A. Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter to the same extent and at the same time as the golf fees are collected from every user.

"B. The amount of tax shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees charged, and each user shall receive a receipt for payment from the operator.

"C. Any good(s) or service(s) that the operator requires any user to rent or purchase in order to use the golf course, which the operator contends is (are) exempt from the golf tax, shall be separately stated from the amount of the golf fees on the invoice or receipt that is provided to the user. In no event shall the total charges for such separately stated required items exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the golf fee that is charged to the user to play a round of golf.

"D. If the golf fee is combined with any other service or use (such as, for example, the purchase of a meal), then for purposes of computing the tax that is imposed under this chapter, the charge for the round of golf or use of a driving range shall be imputed at the standard golf fee that is charged by the operator without any discount, promotion or combination of services.

"E. If the golf fees are paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment; any unpaid tax shall be due upon the user’s ceasing use of the golf course.

"F. If golf fees are paid as part of any membership fee or dues, the operator shall collect a tax on an amount thereof that is fairly allocable to the golf fees or number of rounds the person paying such membership fee or dues is entitled to play under the terms of the membership, or the average number of rounds played by persons paying such membership fees or dues, whichever is greater."

"G. Any operator shall maintain accounting records, using generally accepted accounting principles, that are acceptable to the tax administrator to compute, collect, report and remit the golf tax. Such accounting records shall include, but not be limited to, vouchers or any other methods that the tax administrator may require to verify the golf fees that are being charged, whether by sale or resale, and the golf tax that is owed to the city."

Section 3.Section 3.40.130 of Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending paragraph B thereof to read as follows:

"B. No tax shall be imposed upon any user of a golf course that is that is entirely owned and/or operated by a governmental entity."

Section 4.Savings Clause. The provisions of this ordinance are substantially the same as those originally set forth in Ordinance No. 291, as adopted in 1993. Therefore, this ordinance is to be construed as a restatement and continuation of this earlier ordinance, as previously codified, and not as a new enactment. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be interpreted or enforced in any manner as to constitute an increase in the amount of the tax imposed by Ordinance No. 291.

Section 5.Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of September, 2001.

 

_________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk




12. Planning Case No. ZON2001-00005: a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition for an existing single-family residence in the Portuguese Bend Club community. (Applicant: Len Cushman, 113 Spindrift Drive) (Fox)

Recommendation: Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2001-00005: A LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR A 1,045-SQUARE-FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE PORTUGUESE BEND CLUB COMMUNITY

[APPLICANT: LEN CUSHMAN, 113 SPINDRIFT DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit.

BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2001, the applicant applied for a landslide moratorium exception permit (LME) to allow the necessary applications to be submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for the construction of a two-story addition for the existing residence. The LME application was deemed incomplete on August 20, 2001, pending the submittal of a revised soils report to the City’s geotechnical consultant. A revised report was submitted to the City on August 31, 2001, and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the City’s geotechnical consultant on September 7, 2001. Upon approval of the soils report, the application was deemed complete on September 12, 2001.

The subject property is consists of an existing 963-square-foot single-family residence on an upslope 2,992-square-foot lot in the Portuguese Bend Club community. The existing structure is nonconforming because it is located wholly seaward of the City’s coastal setback line, exceeds the 40-percent lot coverage standard of the RS-2 zoning district, has a substandard garage, and does not meet the required 20-foot front setback. The applicant is proposing a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition.

Pursuant to Section 15.20.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), an LME application for a project in excess of a cumulative project total of six hundred square feet (600 SF) must be acted upon by the City Council. Since the applicants’ proposal encompasses one thousand forty-five square feet (1,045 SF) of new construction, City Council consideration of this application is required.

DISCUSSION

The City has established a moratorium prohibiting the filing, processing and approval of building, grading and other land use permits within the Landslide Moratorium Area. However, RPVMC Section 15.20.040 establishes categories of projects that qualify for exceptions to the moratorium based on specific criteria. This project qualifies for an exception that allows minor projects involving additions to existing residential structures.

RPVMC Section 15.20.040(H) requires that, prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant submit geological and/or geotechnical studies to satisfy the City's geotechnical consultant that the proposed project will not aggravate conditions within the landslide moratorium area. The City's geotechnical consultant completed a review of the geotechnical reports submitted to the City, and concluded that the proposed addition will not aggravate the existing landslide condition in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of approval (see attached Exhibit ‘A’). However, additional project-specific geotechnical information will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

Approval of this LME by the City Council does not constitute Planning approval of the proposed project. Rather, it allows the applicant to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the specific project. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit and obtain approval of a variance, a height variation and a coastal permit. The applications would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through a duly-noticed public hearing. However, approval of this LME by the City Council does not guarantee approval of the subsequent variance, height variation and coastal permit applications by the Planning Commission.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit (LME), thereby permitting the landowner to proceed with the necessary applications to request approval of a 1,045-square-foot two-story addition for the property located at 113 Spindrift Drive in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained in Exhibit ‘A’ of this report.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City Council’s action in this matter will have no fiscal impact upon the City.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Approve the landslide moratorium exception permit for a smaller addition; or,
  2. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the hearing to a date certain.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Conditions of Approval (Exhibit ‘A’)
Application letter (dated June 25, 2001)
Geotechnical approval-in-concept (dated September 7, 2001)
Project plans

Exhibit ‘A’

Conditions of Approval for
Planning Case No. ZON2001-00005
(Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for 113 Spindrift Drive)

 

  1. The approval of this landslide moratorium exception permit shall be valid for one hundred eighty (180) days from date of issuance by the City Council. The Planning applications necessary for the proposed project must be submitted to the Director during this period. The Director may grant extensions beyond this period for good cause.
  2. The approval of this landslide moratorium exception permit authorizes the applicant to submit the following Planning applications for the proposed 1,045-square-foot two-story addition: a Variance, a Height Variation and a Coastal Permit. Additional permits may be submitted if they are identified as necessary during the review of the application by the Planning Division.
  3. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant.
  4. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space which exceed two hundred square feet (200 SF), or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Building Official. For the purposes of this subsection, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom, kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture. For those projects which involve additions of less than two hundred square feet (200 SF) in total area and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant specifically agreeing that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer system on or after July 6, 2000, additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, or by an agreement or condition of project approval.
  5. Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course.
  6. If required by the City geotechnical staff, the applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City geotechnical staff.
  7. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the City. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
  8. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any other easement required by the City to mitigate landslide conditions. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
  9. A hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
  10. The applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the terms of this chapter. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
  11. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.
  12. If the project involves pools and/or spas, a leak detection system approved by the City Building Official shall be installed.

All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code or any other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained.



13. Planning Case No. ZON2001-00004: a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck for an existing single-family residence in the Portuguese Bend Club community. (Applicants: Andrew & Kelly Ely, 112 Spindrift Drive) (Fox)

Recommendation: (1) Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit. (2) Authorize Staff to prepare a notice of termination for an existing covenant related to a previous, expired moratorium exemption permit for the property.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2001-00004: A LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR A 575-SQUARE-FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION AND 166-SQUARE-FOOT SECOND-FLOOR DECK FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE PORTUGUESE BEND CLUB COMMUNITY [APPLICANTS: ANDREW & KELLY ELY, 112 SPINDRIFT DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator:Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

1) Conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit; and 2) authorize Staff to prepare a notice of termination for an existing covenant related to a previous, expired moratorium exemption permit for the property.

BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2001, the applicants applied for a landslide moratorium exception permit (LME) to allow the necessary applications to be submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for the construction of a two-story addition and second-floor deck for the existing residence. The LME application was deemed incomplete on August 20, 2001, pending the submittal of a revised soils report to the City’s geotechnical consultant. A revised report was submitted to the City on August 31, 2001, and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the City’s geotechnical consultant on September 7, 2001. Upon approval of the soils report, the application was deemed complete on September 12, 2001.

The subject property is consists of an existing 1,168-square-foot single-family residence on an upslope 3,218-square-foot lot in the Portuguese Bend Club community. The existing structure is nonconforming because it is located wholly seaward of the City’s coastal setback line, exceeds the 40-percent lot coverage standard of the RS-2 zoning district, and does not meet the required 5-foot side and 20-foot front setbacks. The applicants are proposing a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck.

Pursuant to Section 15.20.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), an LME application for a project in excess of a cumulative project total of six hundred square feet (600 SF) must be acted upon by the City Council. Since the applicants’ proposal encompasses seven hundred forty-one square feet (741 SF) of new construction, City Council consideration of this application is required.

DISCUSSION

The City has established a moratorium prohibiting the filing, processing and approval of building, grading and other land use permits within the Landslide Moratorium Area. However, RPVMC Section 15.20.040 establishes categories of projects that qualify for exceptions to the moratorium based on specific criteria. This project qualifies for an exception that allows minor projects involving additions to existing residential structures.

RPVMC Section 15.20.040(H) requires that, prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant submit geological and/or geotechnical studies to satisfy the City's geotechnical consultant that the proposed project will not aggravate conditions within the landslide moratorium area. The City's geotechnical consultant completed a review of the geotechnical reports submitted to the City, and concluded that the proposed addition will not aggravate the existing landslide condition in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of approval (see attached Exhibit ‘A’). However, additional project-specific geotechnical information will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

Approval of this LME by the City Council does not constitute Planning approval of the proposed project. Rather, it allows the applicant to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the specific project. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit and obtain approval of a variance, a height variation and a coastal permit. The applications would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through a duly-noticed public hearing. However, approval of this LME by the City Council does not guarantee approval of the subsequent variance, height variation and coastal permit applications by the Planning Commission.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This property was the subject of a moratorium exemption permit (as opposed to a landslide moratorium exception permit) in 1989. As a condition of that approval, the previous owner of the property executed a covenant that prohibited any future additions of habitable or non-habitable space (see attached covenant). This was a standard condition of approval at the time. In 1992, the City’s moratorium regulations were revised and the condition requiring this covenant was modified to simply require City approval of any subsequent additions of habitable or non-habitable space, rather than prohibiting such future additions outright.

Although two hundred eighty-two square feet (282 SF) of additional living area were covered by the 1989 approval, the previous owner abandoned the project after only about sixty square feet (60 SF) were constructed at the home’s entry. With the abandonment of the project, the moratorium exemption permit also expired. However, the old covenant remains on the property and effectively prevents any further additions to the house by the current owners. As such, the applicants have requested that the City terminate the existing covenant to allow their project to proceed. Staff believes that, given that so little of the 1989 project was ever completed and that the City now requires a less-restrictive covenant, it is entirely reasonable to remove the covenant related to the 1989 project.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council conditionally approve the requested landslide moratorium exception permit (LME), thereby permitting the landowner to proceed with the necessary applications to request approval of a 575-square-foot two-story addition and a 166-square-foot second-floor deck for the property located at 112 Spindrift Drive in the Portuguese Bend Club community, subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained in Exhibit ‘A’ of this report. Staff also requests permission from the City Council to prepare the appropriate documents to terminate the covenant related to the 1989 moratorium exemption permit.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City Council’s action in this matter will have no fiscal impact upon the City.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

Approve the landslide moratorium exception permit for a smaller addition; or,

Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the hearing to a date certain.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Conditions of Approval (Exhibit ‘A’)
Application letter (dated July 30, 2001)
Geotechnical approval-in-concept (dated September 7, 2001)
Covenant from Moratorium Exemption Permit No. 29
Project plans

 

Exhibit ‘A’

Conditions of Approval for
Planning Case No. ZON2001-00004
(Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for 112 Spindrift Drive)

1. The approval of this landslide moratorium exception permit shall be valid for one hundred eighty (180) days from date of issuance by the City Council. The Planning applications necessary for the proposed project must be submitted to the Director during this period. The Director may grant extensions beyond this period for good cause.

2. The approval of this landslide moratorium exception permit authorizes the applicant to submit the following Planning applications for the proposed 575-square-foot two-story addition and 166-square-foot second-floor deck: a Variance, a Height Variation and a Coastal Permit. Additional permits may be submitted if they are identified as necessary during the review of the application by the Planning Division.

3. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Director of Public Works, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant.

4. If the project involves additional plumbing fixtures, or additions of habitable space which exceed two hundred square feet (200 SF), or could be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, and if the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, septic systems shall be replaced with approved holding tank systems in which to dispose of on-site waste water. The capacity of the required holding tank system shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Building Official. For the purposes of this subsection, the addition of a sink to an existing bathroom, kitchen or laundry room shall not be construed to be an additional plumbing fixture. For those projects which involve additions of less than two hundred square feet (200 SF) in total area and which are not to be used as a new bedroom, bathroom, laundry room or kitchen, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant specifically agreeing that the addition of the habitable space will not be used for those purposes. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit. For lots or parcels which are to be served by a sanitary sewer system on or after July 6, 2000, additional plumbing fixtures may be permitted and the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If a sanitary sewer system is approved and/or under construction but is not yet operational at the time that a project requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved, the requirement for a holding tank may be waived, provided that the lot or parcel is required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system pursuant to Section 15.20.110 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, or by an agreement or condition of project approval.

5. Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course.

6. If required by the City geotechnical staff, the applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City geotechnical staff.

7. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to support and participate in existing or future sewer and/or storm drain assessment districts and any other geological and geotechnical hazard abatement measures required by the City. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.

8. If the lot or parcel is not served by a sanitary sewer system, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City a sewer and storm drain easement on the subject property, as well as any other easement required by the City to mitigate landslide conditions. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.

9. A hold harmless agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project. Such agreement shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.

10. The applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director pursuant to the terms of this chapter. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director for recordation prior to the issuance of a building permit.

11. All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden.

12. If the project involves pools and/or spas, a leak detection system approved by the City Building Official shall be installed.

13. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code or any other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained.


14. Border Issues Status Report. (Evans)


Recommendation:
Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:"BORDER ISSUES" STATUS REPORT

RECOMMENDATION:

Review the current status of border issues and provide direction to the City Council Committee and staff.

BACKGROUND:

At their meeting of April 17, 2001 the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee for dealing with "border issues." The committee is composed of Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem John McTaggart. The committee is charged with monitoring the activities of neighboring jurisdictions to determine whether or not the City Council should take positions on proposed developments (or events or uses) that may adversely affect the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Border issues are those proposed land developments, events or special uses proposed for approval in adjacent communities that may impact the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Recent border issues have included approval by the City of Los Angeles of a Home Depot and a Senior Housing project in San Pedro and approval of a housing project at the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd and Crest Road by Rolling Hills Estates.

At their September 4, 2001 meeting the City Council adopted a policy on how to process "border issues."

DISCUSSION:

No new issues have been added to the report during this period. However, there has been significant activity surrounding the Harbor Hills Community Center that the City Council may wish to discuss and take a position on. There is also a brief comment letter from our geologist regarding the Garden village shopping Center that the Council may wish to take action on.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Evans, City Manager
Attachments: Border Issues Status Report


BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
October 2, 2001

CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION FACILITY AT HARBOR HILLS
(LOS ANGELES COUNTY)

The County has proposed construction of a 12,650 square foot recreation facility for the Harbor Hills Housing area. The $2.3 million project will consist of a gym, two multi-purpose rooms, a recreation office, sports equipment storage, a child care area for 36 pre-school children, a sheriff’s patrol office, a full service kitchen, restrooms and locker rooms.

Homeowners in Peninsula Verde were not offered adequate opportunity to comment on the project and have turned to the City to intercede on their behalf. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart feels the environmental process (CEQA) for the project was flawed and has requested the records documenting the environmental review. A community meeting took place at the Harbor Hills Community Center on August 27, 2001 and was attended by Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart as well as homeowners from Peninsula Verde. In addition to strong objections to the County’s notification process for the project, the homeowners expressed concerns about lighting intensity, times of operation, children crossing PVDN, traffic, unsavory activities near the Lomita water tower and location of the recreation facility. A second meeting took place on September 12, 2001 to allow the County Regional Planning Department to go over the environmental approval process conducted for this project. The Mayor represented the City at this meeting. Issues raised by the homeowners included concerns about the notification process, environmental clearances and parking and grading on the hillside adjacent to their homes.

In response to concerns from Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart, Supervisor Knabe became involved in the matter. The Supervisor has been advised by his staff that the contract must be awarded in September of funding will be lost. He has also been advised by County Counsel that the environmental process was completed in accordance with the law. At their meeting on September 25, 2001, the County awarded the construction contract for the community center. However, in response to the concerns of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, Supervisor Knabe modified the motion to award the contract by adding: " continue to meet with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to address their concerns related to this specific development and report back to the Board within 30 days, and postpone commencement of construction until this matter is further reviewed by the Board."

RE-VITALIZATION OF THE GARDEN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ON WESTERN AVENUE AT WESTMONT (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

The Garden Village revitalization project was approved by the Los Angeles City Council on June 8, 2001. The project, located on Western Avenue north of Westmont, will add 2000 square feet of retail space to a reconfigured shopping center to be anchored by a "super" Albertson’s.

The Border Issues Committee was particularly concerned about the underlying soils and drainage conditions in the project area that includes both the City of Los Angeles and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, at the meeting of June 16, 2001 the ad hoc committee recommended that the City Council authorize a study of these geologic conditions and whether or not the Gardens Village revitalization project will have any adverse impacts on existing properties in our City. The Council authorized the study and funding of $10,000. In addition, City Staff researched the issue of the adequacy of the environmental process for the project.

The statute of limitations has run on the environmental documentation prepared for the Garden Village project. The City Attorney advises us that we have no recourse from that avenue. Bill Cotton, the geologist who is reviewing the geology and soils information provided as part of the project design, has completed his review of the geotechnical reports associated with the Garden Village project. A copy of his comment letter is attached. Mr. Cotton is concerned that there are inadequate long-term geotechnical recommendations to mitigate the impacts of future settlement on existing storm drain and sewer lines on the Village Garden’s property. In order to pursue this potential shortcoming further, intervention at the Councilmember level will probably be required.

EXPANSION OF THE COVENANT CHURCH ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES)

The project is still in the informational gathering phase. It seems that the applicant has been making changes to the project so the exact proposal has not been finalized. Generally, the project involves the construction of a new sanctuary building that would accommodate 2,050 seats, along with a new 3-5 level parking structure with 500 parking spaces. The Church also proposes to convert the existing sanctuary to a gymnasium/multi-purpose room for events such as wedding receptions. The preparation of the Initial Study is still underway which will determine whether the project will necessitate an EIR or Negative Declaration. We will receive a notice when either document is prepared and circulated to the public.

CHADWICK SCHOOL EXPANSION (LOS ANGELES COUNTY)

The Chadwick School is a private school (Kindergarten through 12th grade) located on a 45.2-acre site in an island of unincorporated L.A. County near the intersection of Crenshaw Blvd. and PVDN. The School is requesting a CUP from the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning to authorize the continuance and expansion of the school facilities. Approximately 216,759 sq. ft. of new construction is proposed which includes a 76,500 sq. ft., 3-level parking structure and 10,871 sq. ft. for other school structures, with the reconstruction of existing structures making up the remaining 129,388 sq. ft. The school is also seeking to increase enrollment from 725 to 980 students with the expansion plan.

According to L.A. County Department of Regional Planning Staff, the L.A. County Planning Commission approved the CUP earlier this year and the decision has was appealed by local L.A. County residents to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors heard the appeal on September 25, 2001. Apparently some resolution between the school and the appellant was reached since the appeal was denied with no objection.

Back in March of this year, before the Planning Commission acted on the proposed CUP, our Department was contacted by an Academy Hill resident (the unincorporated LA County neighborhood adjacent to the school) concerned that RPV residents living on Blackhorse and Browndeer Drives may not be aware of the proposed expansion. According to the CUP Staff Report, all residents living within a 500-foot radius of the project, including some residents living in RPV, were invited to an informational meeting about the project. In addition, our Department sent copies of the CUP application to the adjacent Homeowner Associations in RPV. I am not aware of any RPV resident contacting our Department with a concern about the project.




15. Peninsula High School Yearbook Advertisement. (Petru)

Recommendation: Consider whether to place an advertisement in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook.

TO:CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:PENINSULA HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK ADVERTISEMENT

RECOMMENDATION

Consider whether to place an advertisement in the 2002 Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook.

DISCUSSION

In order to help fund the publication of "La Pantera", the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Yearbook, local businesses and other organizations are invited to publish advertisements in the Yearbook. The City has been approached about placing an advertisement in the 2002 edition of the PVPHS Yearbook. Conceptually, the ad could consist of the City’s logo, perhaps a scenic photograph (such as the Point Vicente Lighthouse) and a congratulatory statement to the students and graduating class from the Mayor and City Council. The cost of the various advertisement options are listed below:

Size

Color

Black & White

Full Page

$400

$300

½ Page

$300

$200

¼ Page

$200

$150

Business Card

N/A

$50


The signed contract must be submitted by October 19, 2001. The advertisement itself would be due later, depending on the type of format selected. Color advertisements are due on November 9th and black and white ads would be due on December 7th.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is $6,850 available in unencumbered funds in the FY 01-02 City Grant program. If the Council were in favor of placing the advertisement, staff would recommend using this funding source, which comes from the Community Outreach program in the City Budget.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment:
La Pantera 2002 Yearbook Business Advertising Contract




16. San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (Petru)

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich and Sons, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,250,556 and authorize staff to spend an additional $157,540 for anticipated extra items of work for a total authorization of $2,408,096. (2) Award a professional service contract to Harris and Associates for an amount not to exceed $349,300 for inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project. (3) Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $194,918 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $279,025. (4) Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $31,100 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $79,300. (5) Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 16,000 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $140,610. (6) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION PROJECT BY $1,150,000 MILLION, FROM $2,000,000 TO $3,150,000.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:SAN RAMON DRAINAGE AND LANDSLIDE

STABILIZATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Award a contract to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich and Sons, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $2,250,556 and authorize staff to spend an additional $157,540 for anticipated extra items of work for a total authorization of $2,408,096.

Award a professional service contract to Harris and Associates for an amount not to exceed $349,300 for inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project.

Amend the professional service contract to AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $194,918 for geotechnical inspection services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $279,025.

Amend the professional service contract to Helix Environmental Planning for an amount not to exceed $31,100 for mitigation monitoring services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $79,300.

Amend the professional service contract to DMc Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $ 16,000 for engineering services for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project for a total contract amount of $140,610.

Adopt Resolution No. 2001- ; approving a budget adjustment to increase the Capital Improvement Project budget for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project by $1,150,000 million, from $2,000,000 to $3,150,000.

BACKGROUND

In August 1998, the City Council awarded a contract to replace a failed portion of a debris basin inlet on the north side of Palos Verdes Drive East, between San Ramon Drive and Calle Aventura. While the inlet was being replaced, it became apparent that the portion of the downstream drainage system under Palos Verdes Drive East was close to failure and needed to be replaced immediately. In October 1998, the Council approved a change order to replace a 250-foot section of the drainage system under Palos Verdes Drive East. While the replacement was underway, staff determined that the remaining portion of the drainage system located in San Ramon Canyon, while structurally sound, was undersized for the amount of storm water that the system was expected to convey. However, it was inadvisable at the time (October 1998) with the rainy season approaching to try to design and undertake the replacement of the remaining section of the drainage system on such short notice.

In January 1999, one month after the drainpipe was replaced under Palos Verdes Drive East, the City discovered evidence of slope erosion just to the east of the outlet structure located in the bottom of San Ramon Canyon. After further investigation, the City determined that the erosion, which appeared to have taken place over a long period of time, had removed the toe of an ancient landslide and exposed a slide plane. If left unchecked, the hillside above had the potential of becoming unstable. Further, upsizing the existing drainage system would be more complex, as any drainage improvement options considered would have to be extended well beyond the existing outlet to effectively eliminate further erosion in the canyon and address the long-term stability of the area.

Initially, the drainage improvement project was expected to require approximately 4,000 cubic yards of fill to be placed at the bottom on the canyon to buttress the toe of the existing landslide and provide a suitable base for the new drainpipe. However, geologic boring that were conducted in March 2001 determined that, in addition to the slide plane that has already been exposed at the bottom of the canyon, there are multiple potential slide planes that progress up the hill on the east side of the canyon. In addition, there was now evidence that the landslide has begun to move again. Even if the toe of the landslide is buttressed, there is the possibility of movement on one or more of the upper slide planes, which could threaten the new drainage facility, the access road, utilities, private homes and other improvements that sit above the north and east sides of the canyon. Therefore, the scope of the project was expanded from 4,000 cubic yards of fill to 75,000 cubic yards in order to buttress the entire slope. On July 3, 2001, the City Council declared the project to be an emergency.

As designed, the project will be carried out in two phases. Phase I, which is intended to stabilize the landslide prior to the next rainy season, involves placing an approximately 25,000 cubic yard "plug" of imported fill at the base of the slope. The lower section of the permanent storm drain would be constructed within the "plug" and would be connected to the existing drainpipe located further up the canyon. Therefore, if the winter rains are early this year, there would at least be a continuous storm drain from Palos Verdes Drive East to the bottom of the canyon, and bypassing the landslide. Phase II involves the placement of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of imported fill in the canyon to provide additional buttress strength for the east slope. The finished surface of the buttress slope would include 2:1 and 2 ½:1 gradients and would have an overall height of approximately 120 feet. Terrace drains and down drains would be installed on the graded slope to conduct surface water off of the slope. Phase II also includes upsizing the remaining portion of the existing drainage facilities located between Palos Verdes Drive East and the new pipe installed as part of Phase I.

DISCUSSION

Because of the complexity and critical time frame for this project, the City pre-qualified the contractors allowed to bid on the project. Notice of Pre-Qualification was published on July 28, 2001. By the August 30, 2001 deadline, four firms had submitted pre-qualification statements to the City:

CBR Eng Contractor

Colich & Sons

Road Builders

Shelton Construction Company

After carefully reviewing the submitted Pre-Qualification Statements, the City determined that Colich & Sons and Road Builders were the firms pre-qualified to bid on the project. The primary factors used in making this determination were: 1) experience in hillside/canyon grading and landslide abatement, 2) past public works experience and performance record, 3) experience in installing HDPE pipe, 4) bonding capacity, 5) ability to meet minimum insurance requirements ($10 million), 6) experience and qualifications of the personnel assigned to the project.

On September 5, 2001, the City conducted a mandatory pre-bid walk at the job site with the two pre-qualified bidders. On September 19, 2001, one bid was received from Colich & Sons. A summary of the bid is as follows:

PHASE I

Bid Item

Engineer’s Estimate

Colich & Sons

Street Improvements

$0

$0

Grading

$379,044

$782,662

Storm Drain

$54,725

$57,335

Miscellaneous*

$30,000

$75,000

Total Phase I

$463,769

$914,997

* Primarily demolition and mobilization costs

PHASE II

Bid Item

Engineer’s Estimate

Colich & Sons

Street Improvements

$132,445

115,491

Grading

$760,729

$932,095

Storm Drain

$137,885

$159,205

Miscellaneous**

$89,800

$128,778

Total Phase I

$1,120,859

$1,335,569

** Primarily landscaping and utility relocation costs

TOTAL PROJECT

$1,584,628

$2,250,556


These costs presented in the chart are bid results and do not include anticipated costs for engineering, inspection, administrative costs during construction, as well as any contract change orders.

As shown in the chart on the previous page, the only bid received for the project was in the amount of $2,250,556. The adopted FY 01-02 Capital Improvements Budget includes $2 million for the San Ramon Project. The budgeted amount includes both construction ($1.7 million) and professional/technical services ($300,000). The source of these funds is the General fund.

Because the bid from Colich & Sons was approximately $660,000 or 30% higher than the engineer’s construction estimate, the two were closely compared. It is immediately apparent that the contractor’s unit cost for importing and placing the fill dirt is substantially higher than the engineer’s estimate. The total difference equals $512,500. This accounts for 78% of the $660,000 difference between the two estimates. This would seem to indicate that the availability of suitable import in the quantity required at this time is limited, perhaps due to the time of year and/or the short-time frame of the project. In addition, it is probable that the dirt source is at some distance from the Peninsula and would also have to be hauled up the hill over steep and winding roads. Given these circumstances, it stands to reason that the cost for dirt would be at a premium. Without this difference, the contractor’s bid is relative to the engineer’s estimate and would be within 22% of each other.

Regarding the qualifications of the contractor, Colich & Sons met all of the City’s stringent pre-qualification requirements and has demonstrated an understanding of the project details, including the critical time frame, difficult access and constrained canyon work environment. The Public Works Department has also worked successfully with this contractor on other projects, including the high-profile Abalone Cove Sewer Project. On that project, the contractor demonstrated an ability to work closely with the public, which will also be a critical factor in the success of the San Ramon Project. This will, however, be the first time staff has worked with this contractor on a landslide stabilization project.

Due to the emergency status of this project and the time constraints imposed by the short construction schedule, staff is convinced that re-bidding the project would be inadvisable. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project to Colich & Sons.

INSPECTION, MITIGATION MONITORING, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION

On September 4, 2001, Council authorized staff to increase the contracts for three of the consultants working on the design of the San Ramon Project: AMEC Earth and Environmental, Helix Environmental Planning and DMC Engineering. Staff requested the increases because the scope of the work for the project had changed dramatically since the contracts were first executed. In the report prepared for that meeting, staff indicated that the current contracts with these firms do not include costs for inspection services while the project is under construction. Because there was no practical way to estimate the inspection costs until the final construction schedule had been established, staff indicated that when we brought the construction contract to the City Council for approval, staff would also bring forward additional contract amendments with these three consultants for inspection services. In addition, because the project is now entering into the construction phase, another consultant is needed to provide over all project management for the City in the field. Therefore, staff is recommending that a fourth consulting firm be added to the project team to provide these specific services.

The team of consultants that staff recommends to manage the construction of the San Ramon Project is as follows:

Harris and Associates – Construction Management and Primary Inspection ($349,300)

This firm will provide day-to-day inspection services and construction management services. They will provide the interface between the contractor and the neighbors impacted by the construction. This firm ably assisted the City with cancellation of the contract for the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion and most recently successfully managed the construction of the high profile Abalone Cove Sewer Project. Because of the City’s relationship with Harris and Associates, staff was able to negotiate the original estimate of $368, 650 down by nearly $20,000 to the current $349,300 amount.

AMEC Earth and Environmental – Geotechnical Inspection ($194,918)

This firm will provide geotechnical inspection services during all grading work. This firm was selected because it was involved during the design phase and its staff has an intimate knowledge of the geologic characteristics of the site, the buttress fill and the surface and subsurface drainage systems that will be installed as part of the project.

AMEC will also prepare detailed pre-construction geology studies of each property that will be affected by the project in order to properly document the pre-existing condition of these properties.

Helix Environmental Planning – Mitigation Monitoring ($31,100)

This firm prepared the CEQA environmental compliance documentation for the project and negotiated the necessary permits with the various resource agencies. Their services will be required to ensure that all required mitigation measures are properly implemented and adhered to during construction.

DMc Engineering – Civil Engineering and Surveying ($16,000)

This firm provided services in preparing the project specifications, pre-qualification packages, contract documents and pre-ordering the drainage pipe. Their services will be required if questions arise over the specifications and to perform miscellaneous survey work during construction.

The total cost for inspection, mitigation monitoring, engineering and administration is $591,318. This represents approximately 25% of the total construction cost of the project (the bid amount plus a contingency). Like the construction bid amount, the cost for these services for the San Ramon Project are substantially higher than the City would normally expect. Typically, inspection costs are approximately 7% of the total construction cost. However, there are several factors that are driving up the inspection and management costs of this particular project:

High level of personnel needed to supervise the project. Essentially two full-time staff will be at the job site during construction: a project manager from Harris and Associates (@ $100/hr.) and a geologist from AMEC Earth and Environmental (@ $78/hr.). These consultants are highly trained and qualified to perform the type of work that will be necessary to complete this project. Due to the high sensitivity and speed at which this project must be completed, it will be essential to have these personnel at the construction site during critical grading and construction activities

Extended work schedule. Because of the emergency status of the project, there is a need to complete Phase I of the project before the impending winter rains. There is also a need to complete Phase II as soon as possible thereafter in order to minimize the inconvenience and disruption to the lives of the residents in the immediate area. In order to accommodate these two goals, the work schedule has been expanded, with the neighbors’ concurrence, to include construction six days a week (Monday through Saturday) with 9 ½ hour days (8:00 AM to 6:00 PM with a ½ hour lunch period).

Complexity of the project. The San Ramon project is a very unusual public works project. Capital improvement projects in this City don’t typically involve 100% of the work occurring on private property, the import of 75,000 cubic yards of earth and remediation of a landslide. The project managers must concern themselves with geology, hydrology, biological impacts, water quality, traffic control, public safety and public relations. This level of work is more akin to a medium to large residential subdivision.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall cost of constructing the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project was initially estimated to be $2 million. The total cost of construction now stands at $2,999,414. The construction bid and management proposals that have been received for the project are higher than what the City would normally expect. However, the higher cost for the construction is attributable to the fact that this is a high profile, high-risk project that is constrained by the need for a substantial amount of imported fill material and a compressed time schedule. Higher management costs are largely due to the fact that this project cannot afford any significant delays or mishaps caused by not providing the proper level supervision in the field and sensitivity to the adjacent residents. Given these facts, staff recommends that the City Council award the bid to Colich & Sons and authorize the inspection services, as proposed.

If the contract is awarded this evening, the pre-construction meeting would be held on October 4, 2001 and construction would begin on October 9, 2001. The contractor will be required to complete the first phase of the project, including placement of 25,000 cubic yards of fill at the toe of the landslide and installation of a temporary storm drain and outlet structure, within 50 working days from the start of construction (December 8, 2001). The second phase of the project, including placement of the remaining 50,000 cubic yards of fill in the canyon and completion of the permanent storm drain system, is expected to take an additional 150 working days (June 5, 2002), weather permitting.

FISCAL IMPACT

If the Council decides to proceed, the FY 01-02 Capital Improvement Fund appropriation for this project would need to be increased by $1 million, for a total budget amount of $3 million. The resolution that has been prepared for the budget adjustment also includes the $150,000 the City Council authorized on September 18, 2001 for the pre-purchase and fabrication of drainage pipe for the project. The source of the funds is the General fund. The chart below shows the General fund ending balance included in the adopted FY 01-02 Budget, less the budgeted expenditures that have occurred since that time:

General Fund Balance

FY 2001-2002 Budget Summary

General Fund – Ending Fund Balance (original Budget FY 01-02)

$6,426,936

Less Increases to budgeted expenditures:

 

Girls Softball Feasibility Study (transfer to CIP)

$10,000

Purchase of Tax Defaulted Property

$2,978

P.V.D.S. Pre-Order Drainage Pipe (transfer to CIP)

$35,000

Hawthorne/Vallon Drive Traffic Signal (transfer to CIP

$135,000

San Ramon Pre-Order Drainage Pipe (transfer to CIP)

$150,000

San Ramon Drainage & Landslide Stabilization (transfer to CIP)

$1,000,000


It should be noted that the cost of the project does not include all of the mitigation for the coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat that will be lost as result of the project. While most of the coastal sage scrub habitat will be re-vegetated on-site, due to the replacement ratios required by the resource agencies, a portion will be required to be provided off-site. The City has proposed to locate the remaining portion of coastal sage scrub habitat at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and pay an in-lieu fee for the loss of riparian habitat. Once the off-site habitat restoration plans and costs are determined, staff will return to the City Council with a separate agenda item.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not award the contract and direct staff to re-bid the project. Due to the emergency status of this project, staff does not recommend this alternative.

2. Award only Phase I of the contract. With this alternative, the contractor would only place the 25,000 cubic yard "plug" at the toe of the landslide and install the lower portion of the new storm drain system that would bypass the toe of the landslide. However, this alternative would jeopardize the goodwill that has been established with the adjacent residents and re-starting the project would prolong the tremendous inconvenience for these citizens.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager


 

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution 2001-43, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2001-02 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to allocate additional funds to construct the San Ramon Drainage and Landslide Stabilization Project; and

WHEREAS, a budget increase in the Capital Improvement Projects Fund is necessary to authorize the expenditure of additional funds for the project.

BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

The following adjustments be made to the Capital Improvement Projects Fund budget:

CIP $1,150,000 #330-930-82 Improvements other than Bldgs.
CIP $1,150,000 #330-391.10 Transfer in from General Fund
General Fund $1,150,000 #001-391.20 Transfer out to CIP Fund

 

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 2nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2001.

 

___________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
CITY CLERK

 

State of California)
County of Los Angeles)ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes)

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on October 2, 2001.

 

_____________________________
CITY CLERK


17. Format of City Council Minutes. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing preparation, format and changes to City Council minutes.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT: FORMAT OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION

Provide direction to staff for preparation of a policy describing the preparation, format, and changes to City Council minutes.

BACKGROUND

This matter comes to the City Council as the result of direction given to staff at the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting.

DISCUSSION

Format

Minutes are written to affirm in writing the proceedings of the City Council. They are an official record that is classified as "permanent" and can never be destroyed.

There are three types of minutes: Action: Records the motions made, the name of the maker and second, and the vote, whether roll call or by voice (see Exhibit "A"). Summary: Provides similar information and presents a brief summary of the Council discussion points (see Exhibit "B"). Detailed: Contains a detailed record of all discussion and includes attributing statements made to specific councilmembers (see Exhibit "C"). Since incorporation in 1973, the minutes of City Council meetings have been in summary format (See Exhibit "D"). To-date 23 volumes of minutes have been written. (There is a fourth type of minutes, verbatim minutes that are prepared by a court reporter or other similar service. Due to the high cost of preparing verbatim minutes, and the other technology that is available, this type of minutes is not being addressed in this report.)

The summary format was chosen because of certain concerns: that elected officials sometimes have a tendency to use the minutes as a political platform; and, that preparing detailed minutes would significantly increase the amount of staff time required to prepare the minutes. In the event a councilmember wanted to have a statement recorded in the minutes, however, provision was made to accommodate such a request under certain conditions. This summary format was memorialized by the adoption of Resol. No. 75-31, which specifically addressed "Remarks by Council Members" as follows:

"Unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Officer, remarks and/or debate shall not be entered into the minutes. Councilmembers may request the privilege of having an abstract of their statements on any subject under consideration by the Council entered into the minutes. If the Council consents thereto by a majority vote, such abstract shall be entered into the minutes, if presented in writing. Unless granted further time by Council, remarks shall be limited to five minutes." (Resol. No. 75-31, Section 7.Rules of Debate and Procedure)

In 1993 the City Council adopted new Rules of Procedure. Those rules and subsequent amendments did not address the specific format of the minutes nor the process for inserting an abstract; consequently, the summary format has continued in effect.

Preparation

The preparation of the City Council minutes generally takes three hours of transcription for each hour of meeting. While the minutes are taken using a laptop computer, these notes do not result in a near final copy (See Exhibit "E"). Upon completion of the initial draft, the minutes are disseminated to the various departments for editing. Generally, the minutes of a meeting are included in the agenda packet of the succeeding meeting.

Participants in a meeting can speak at a rate of 180 to 190 words per minutes; keyboarding discussion is at the rate of 75 to 80 words per minutes. Unlike the verbatim testimony taken by a certified court reporter at a rate of up to 260 words per minute, the laptop computer notes taken at our meetings are limited to recording key points of discussion, and finally the motions adopted by Council. These notes then require editing to result in the summary sections of the minutes that begin with the introduction "Council discussion focused on . . ."

While detailed minutes are not direct quotations, they do require paraphrasing of discussion to put it in a grammatically correct form and to attribute specific comments to specific members. In the event that the notes taken at the meeting are insufficient, then the tape of the meeting must be reviewed for clarification. Using our current method of taking notes, the preparation of detailed minutes would probably result in reporting fewer key points and instead require the minute taker to keyboard as much of a particular statement as possible. The minute taker would have to decide which statements, comments and/or responses should be chosen for recordation. Inherent in this, of course, is the issue of whether the councilmembers would agree that the statements chosen for recordation were interpreted correctly and if they were the appropriate comments to record.

To give Council a sense of how other cities write their minutes, staff contacted cities in the South Bay and requested a sample of their minutes. Those samples are attached as Exhibit "F."

Legal Requirement

The only legal requirement for the content of minutes is contained in Government Code Section 36814, which states "The Council shall cause the clerk to keep a correct record of its proceedings. At the request of a member, the city clerk shall enter the ayes and noes in the journal." The Code is silent about the "style" and whether minutes should be action, summary, or detailed.

Technology

Although the written minutes are the official record of City Council meetings, the advent of certain technology now makes it possible to record the meetings in several different mediums, to wit:

On-Line Video Streaming:Replays of City Council and Planning Commission meetings are now available over the Internet. The public only needs Real Player G2, version 6.0 or later software and Internet access to the City’s Web site to view current and archived video files. Instructions to obtain Real Player G2 are on the Web site and can be downloaded free. Video streaming not only gives the public access to the complete record of the City Council meetings but it also provides staff with the means to review meetings for clarification of Council direction. Palos Verdes on the Net will make a separate broadcast quality DVD copy of each meeting for permanent archival.

On-Line Webcasting: Webcasting would give residents who have Internet access but who are not hooked up to cable TV the ability to view meetings live over the Internet. The City does not currently have this capability; Palos Verdes on the Net can provide it by converting the Cox Cable signal on-the-fly to a digital format to enable viewing with use of the Real Player software over the Internet. A dedicated broadcast-capable workstation and additional Internet bandwidth would be required from the point of origin on the City’s network. The cost of acquiring additional bandwidth would be approximately $3,000 each month.

Videotaping:Cox Cable already produces a master videotape of City Council meetings. As part of the City’s official Records Management Retention and Destruction Schedule, this master could be retained for a period of ten years. Cox will also make a duplicate copy that could be distributed to the library for checkout by patrons. Due to space limitation, however, the library would maintain these tapes on a 13-month basis in the History Room at the Malaga Cove Library (See Exhibit "G"). These videotapes are provided by Cox as part of their franchise agreement with the City.

CONCLUSION

The written minutes are the official record of City Council meetings and those minutes are kept forever. Technology now gives the City the ability to provide the live and delayed broadcast of these meetings through video and digital mediums that present complete and unedited viewing of City Council meetings. These advances appear to obviate the preparation of detailed written minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Exhibit "A" City of Santa Monica Minutes
Exhibit "B" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minutes
Exhibit "C" City of Palos Verdes Estates Minutes
Exhibit "D" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minutes
Exhibit "E" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Minute Notes
Exhibit "F" Minutes from the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Redondo Beach, and El Segundo
Exhibit "G" Palos Verdes Library District September 27, 2000 letter
Exhibit "H" October 2, 2001 Memorandum fro Councilman Stern re Form of City Council Minutes


Memo regarding Minutes for Agenda Item # 17 (PDF File)



18. Establishment of a Schedule and Venue for the Long Point Project City Council Public Hearings. (Rojas)

Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as to when to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and where to conduct the public hearings.



TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

SUBJECT:ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHEDULE AND VENUE FOR THE LONG POINT PROJECT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION

Provide Staff with direction as to when to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and where to conduct the public hearings.

BACKGROUND

The Planning Commission has been reviewing the Long Point Resort Project applications, through a series of public hearings, since April of this year. The Commission now appears close to forwarding a recommendation on the EIR, the use of City land, and the project applications to the City Council. Given the amount of public interest in this project, it is expected that the public hearings before the City Council will draw large audiences that may be too overwhelming for the existing facilities at Hesse Park. In addition, the amount of time needed to hear the Long Point item may impact other items on a regular meeting agenda. In light of these issues, Staff is seeking Council direction as to when the Council would like to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and whether the Council would consider conducting the hearings at a different, larger venue.

DISCUSSION

At their September 25th meeting, the Planning Commission conceptually approved a project plan that includes 5 golf holes and a 9.3 acre open space area (for active and passive recreational uses which are to be determined at a later date by the City) on the Upper Point Vicente property and 4 golf holes, a practice facility, and the resort hotel (including resort villas) on the Long Point property. The Commission is now set to review the conditions of approval, discuss certification of the project EIR and adopt resolutions forwarding recommendations to the City Council at its next meeting on October 9, 2001.

In discussing the EIR, it has been reiterated to the Commission that pursuant to CEQA, the City Council is required to certify the project EIR within one year from the date the project applications were deemed complete (July 17, 2000). Since the project applicant has granted a 90-day extension, the EIR certification deadline is October 17, 2001. However, as it was explained to the Commission, CEQA is silent on what occurs if the deadline is not met. Therefore Staff and the City Attorney believe that there would be no automatic penalties or negative consequences, such as a de facto project approval, if the EIR is certified after October 17, 2001. Furthermore, Staff has discussed this issue with the project applicant, and the applicant does not object to the City Council considering certification of the EIR after October 17, 2001. Therefore, if the Planning Commission forwards its recommendations, as planned, on October 9, 2001, the City Council could begin hearing the Long Point project application package as early as its regularly scheduled November 7, 2001 meeting.

With regards to an alternate hearing venue, Staff has spoken to the PVP School District about the possibility of using the large auditorium (Fine Arts Building) located on the Miraleste Intermediate School site to conduct the Long Point hearings. The auditorium can accommodate up to 450 people, the City Council and Staff set-up and video cameras for Cox Cable. The School District has indicated that they are willing to allow the City to use the facility, if so desired by the City Council.

Given all of this information, Staff has identified the following options for the Council to consider for conducting the Long Point project hearings:

Begin hearing the project as part of the regularly scheduled agenda for the November 7, 2001 meeting at Hesse Park;

Begin hearing the project as part of the regularly scheduled agenda for the November 7, 2001 meeting, at Miraleste Intermediate School.

Begin hearing the project at an adjourned meeting, on a date to be determined by the City Council, with an agenda devoted solely to the Long Point project at Hesse Park.

Begin hearing the project at an adjourned meeting, on a date to be determined by the City Council, with an agenda devoted solely to the Long Point project at Miraleste Intermediate School.

In considering the options, the Council may wish to consider the following factors:

  • Whether to discuss and take action on the certification of the EIR issue first, separate from taking action on the related project applications.
  • The likelihood that it may take multiple City Council meetings to take action on the EIR certification and project applications.
  • The possibility of the make-up of the City Council changing in December, as a result of the November election.
  • The applicant’s expectations of an expeditious hearing process with as little delay as possible.


  • CONCLUSION

    The Planning Commission appears close to forwarding a recommendation on the Long Point Project EIR, the use of the City’s Upper Pt. Vicente property, and the Long Point project applications to the City Council. Given the amount of public interest in this project, Staff is seeking Council direction as to when the Council would like to begin hearing the Long Point project applications and whether the Council would consider conducting the hearings at a different, larger venue.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Joel Rojas , Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

    Reviewed by:
    Les Evans, City Manager




    19. Disclosure of Contact with Major Landowners/Developers. (Councilman Stern)

    Recommendation: Adopt a City Council Policy that: Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall publicly disclose in writing to the City Clerk the existence of all communications between such person and a major landowner or major developer of real property within the City, which communication relates to such real property. A "Major Landowner" or "Major Developer" shall mean any person or representative of a person or entity who owns or has an interest in, or is attempting to develop any parcel in excess of 10 acres. Such contacts must be reported in writing within 30 days of the date of such contact. The writing need only identify (1) the parties to the communication, (2) the real property involved, (3) the date, and (4) include a very general statement of the topic of the communication. Such report shall be maintained by the City Clerk and be available for review by any person.



    To:Mayor Lyon and City Council Members

    From:Council Member Douglas W. Stern

    Date:October 2, 2001

    Subject:Disclosure of Contacts with Major Landowners/Developers

    RECOMMENDATION

    Adopt a City Council Policy that:

    Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission shall publicly disclose in writing to the City Clerk the existence of all communications between such person and a major landowner or major developer of real property within the City, which communication relates to such real property. A "Major Landowner" or "Major Developer" shall mean any person or representative of a person or entity who owns or has an interest in, or is attempting to develop any parcel in excess of 10 acres. Such contacts must be reported in writing within 30 days of the date of such contact. The writing need only identify (1) the parties to the communication, (2) the real property involved, (3) the date, and (4) include a very general statement of the topic of the communication. Such report shall be maintained by the City Clerk and be available for review by any person.

    DISCUSSION

    Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes have historically been very interested in land development issue impacting the City. This interest was the primary reason for the formation of the City. It continues today, as evidenced by the significant public turn-out to address such matters as the proposed Long Point Resort hotel and golf course project, the Ocean Trails project, and the proposed affordable senior housing project.

    This concern was further evidenced by a letter from the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association dated March 7, 1998. That letter, reflecting a resolution of the RPV Council of Homeowners Association stated:

    "Development of each of the remaining major parcels of land in our City will be a major issue, and the public has a right to know of contacts between our elected and appointed officials and land owners and/or developers and their representatives. Therefore, Homeowner Council approved a motion to propose that the City Council take appropriate action to make the following policy:

    "City Council members and commission members must submit a written report at a public meeting noting all contacts with land owners, developers and/or their agents who have a development interest in major parcels. The report must include the date of the contact, the land owner or agent making the contact and the purpose of the contact. Contacts must be reported within 1 month of their occurrence. The report must be maintained as part of the public record."

    I believe that such a policy is very beneficial to the residents of the City, as well as to the Council and its Members.

    The significant benefits of such a Policy include:

    • Providing the residents, press and any interested person with information indicating that the landowners/developers are communicating with Council Members or Members of the Planning Commission regarding their real property, thereby allowing the residents and/or the press to inquire about the discussions.

    • It aids the City Council and Planning Commission in gaining the confidence of the residents that no member of such body is engaged in any conduct which might be (erroneously) characterized as "backroom dealings."

    • It makes it possible for residents to know that they should make their views known to the City Council and Planning Commission members on these matters at times when the government officials are being provided information by the developer or landowner. This tends to "level the playing field" for the residents.

    • It makes it more likely that the interested residents or the press will seek out information of interest to them about such possible real property projects, since there will be information indicating that perhaps some movement on a project is taking place.

    • It aids the City Council in addressing oft-repeated claims that residents were not provided information on such matters until the projects had been moved far along in the process

    • It makes is less likely that Members "buy-into" projects that they are addressing with landowners/developers early into the process before the public has had any opportunity to learn that such project may be in the works,

    I am aware that when the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations asked the City Council to adopt this policy in 1998, then Mayor Ferraro, responded that she believed the burden of such reports would be too great. Her letter to the RPV Council of Homeowners Associations stated:

    "As you probably know, the State of California has some of the most stringent open meeting, financial disclosure and conflict of interest laws in the nation. City elected and appointed officials are bound by these regulations. Although the burden of these regulations occasionally makes it difficult to conduct the public's business, each of us swears to uphold these laws and my observation is that officials in this city do an excellent job in complying with the regulations.

    Until one serves in public office it is difficult to appreciate the burden existing laws place on those of us who gladly comply in order to contribute to our communities. However, in light of existing disclosure regulations, the additional burden you suggest is unnecessary and unworkable."

    I do not believe that this statement can justify the refusal to adopt such a policy.

    First, the disclosure laws do not address the issue to which this proposed policy speaks. No state or other law addresses the issue of reporting or making publicly known such communications. The present laws address other concerns, such as financial disclosure and meeting of a majority of a governing body. This proposed policy is designed to address an entirely different issue. The proposed policy is designed to allow residents and the press to become aware of situations which may lead to greater public involvement in our decision making process. It will allow them to learn when meetings or other communications take place that may indicate that projects that impact the community may be moving forward.

    Second, the proposal does not place any significant burden upon any council member. The policy requires disclosure only of communications regarding the real property, not casual communications. The level of detail required is minimal. I have attached to this report a number of sample of reports I have given in the past, reflecting the level of detail that I envision. The number of communications that are likely to be subject to such reports is rather few. Only if the number of such communications is significant might there be concern. However, it is precisely when the number of communications that are otherwise unknown to the public becomes great that there is the most significant need for this policy. For should there be a significant number of such communications, our residents should be entitled to learn of them and assess for themselves the desirability or need to make their desires known to the city council members.

    Our City Council has adopted many policies in the past when it has perceived a public benefit in addressing an issue. Such policies include such things as the order in which our names will be listed on stationary (Council Policy #3). I believe that the public interest in this issue of public disclosure of communications with the major landowners or developers is certainly as worthy of adoption by this Council.

    CONCLUSION

    The City Council will both benefit the residents and itself by adopting the proposed City Council Policy. It will assist our residents, and also provide greater confidence in the City Council by the residents.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Douglas W. Stern
    City Council Member

    To:City Clerk

    From:Douglas W. Stern

    Date:December 7, 1999

    Subject:Communications with Major Developers

    I wish to report the following communications with representative of major developers in Rancho Palos Verdes since the election of November 2, 1999:

    Developer:Jim York (Filiorum Property)

    Date:November 4, 1999 and November 6, 1999

    Purpose:I had a meeting with Jim York, of York Long Point Associates, owner of both the Long Point property (old Marineland site) and the Filiorum property. Mr. York telephoned me on Thursday, November 4, 1999 and requested that I meet with him so that he could show me his plans for his Filiorum property.

    On Saturday, November 6, 1999, I met with Mr. York. He showed me some plans for Filiorum and drove me around the property. The meeting lasted approximately 1¼ hours.

    Developer:York Long Point Project (Mike Mohler)

    Date:November 22, 1999

    Purpose:I received a phone call from Mike Mohler advising me that the Long Point Project would be submitting a revised proposal in the near future, about Dec. 10, 1999. He told me that as a courtesy he was inviting me to preview their revised Proposal. I advised Mike Mohler that I would prefer to obtain the information through official channels and declined the invitation.

    To:Jo Purcell, City Clerk

    From:Douglas W. Stern

    Date:April 4, 2000

    Subject:Communications with Major Developers

    I wish to report the following communications with representatives of major developers in Rancho Palos Verdes since our last meeting on March 8, 2000:

    Developer:Destination Resorts (Lowe Enterprises, Robert J. Lowe, Bob Lowe, Mike Mohler)

    Date:March 31, 2000

    Purpose:Mike Mohler of Destination Resorts contacted me and requested that he and the Lowes meet with me to show me their revised plan for Long Point and the City Hall Property. They met with me on March 31, 2000, showed me a one page diagram of the new plan that they intend to file with the City and explained some of the changes that they had made to the prior plan submitted to the City which was the subject of the February, 1999 City Council meeting. The meeting lasted approximately 1 hour.

    Developer:Ocean Trails (Barbara Dye)

    Date:March 10, 2000

    Purpose:The recent heavy rains that had fallen on Sunday, March 5, 2000 had resulted in the exposure of the sewer line running though the eastern portion of the Ocean Trails golf course, as reported and revealed on the front page of the P.V. News of March 9, 2000. I made arrangements with Barbara Dye to view the situation. The Sanitation District had already concreted over the exposed sewer line when I viewed it. Barbara Dye also showed me the interior of the Club House which was nearing completion. The meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes.



    20. Proposed Amendment to the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance. (Rojas)

    Recommendation: Provide staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review procedures.

    TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

    DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

    SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S NEIGHBORHOOD

    COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Provide Staff with direction as to whether to initiate code amendment proceedings to consider amendments to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review procedures.

    BACKGROUND:

    On January 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 355 (Code Amendment No. 46) that, among other things, required that residential additions consisting of a 25% or more expansion of the total square footage of the original main residence, including garage, be subject to a "neighborhood compatibility" analysis (see attached excerpt minutes).

    It has recently been brought to Staff’s attention by Councilman McTaggart that there may be additions, which do not trigger the 25% "neighborhood compatibility" requirement, but are constructed in a manner where they do not appear to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. As a result, Councilman McTaggart has requested that this item be placed on the agenda so that the Council can consider whether to amend the "neighborhood compatibility" review requirements to address these situations.

    DISCUSSION

    According to the current Development Code (see attached section 17.02.030.B), the determination of whether a new residence or an addition to an existing residence is compatible with the "neighborhood character" is made by the Planning Commission or Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement in the course of considering the applicable permit application. A "neighborhood compatibility" analysis involves an assessment of a proposed project in terms of "neighborhood character", which is defined as, 1) scale of surrounding residences, 2) architectural styles and materials, and 3) front yard setbacks. The Director’s or Planning Commission’s determination of a project’s compatibility with "neighborhood character" is based on a review of the above characteristics relative to the ten closest residences (the immediate neighborhood). Notice of an application involving a "neighborhood compatibility" finding is published in the local newspaper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project. Due to the noticing and analysis requirements, it takes approximately 2 to 3 months to process such applications.

    Presently, if proposed additions do not trigger the "neighborhood compatibility" review criteria (25% or more expansion of original structure size), the subject applications are solely reviewed to ensure compliance with the City’s development standards (setbacks, lot coverage, height, etc.). If the proposed additions are in compliance with the Development Code standards, the applications are administratively approved without public notice. This process takes approximately 2 to 3 working days.

    In order to ensure that additions which do not trigger the "neighborhood compatibility" review criteria, but have the potential to create "neighborhood compatibility" impacts, are thoroughly reviewed, Councilman McTaggart would like to add a clause to the Development Code that allows the Director to require a "neighborhood compatibility" analysis when additions that are less than 25% of the original building size have the potential to create impacts to the neighborhood due to obvious non-compatible design features. The specific design features that would trigger such a review could include, but not be limited to:

  • Additions which have a different roof design than the existing residence.


  • Additions that include roof ridgelines that are substantially higher (3 to 4 feet) than the existing ridgeline.


  • Additions that feature large windows on building facades that do not have existing windows.
  • If the Council agrees to initiate the proposed code amendment, the actual amendment language would first be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a noticed public hearing process. The Commission would then forward a recommendation to the City Council for its consideration and eventual adoption.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    On August 29, 2001, the City received a letter (attached) from a resident requesting that the City Council consider amending the neighborhood compatibility ordinance to be less restrictive. Specifically, he is requesting that the Council amend the Ordinance to give the Director the discretion to exempt projects that exceed the 25% threshold from having to go through the "neighborhood compatibility" analysis, if it is determined that they would not "affect the neighborhood in any way". The letter was previously distributed to the Council via the August 30, 2001 Friday Report.

    FISCAL IMPACT:

    The proposed code amendment would have no fiscal impact.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Joel Rojas , Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

    Reviewed by:
    Les Evans , City Manager

    Attachments:
    City Council Meeting Minutes of December 21, 1999
    Code Section 17.02.030(B)
    Letter from Ali Aryafar dated August 22, 2001


    CLOSED SESSION REPORT:


    CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:


    ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

     


    CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


    Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
    (All Statutory References are to California Government
    Code Sections)

    CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
    G.C. 54956.8

    Potential purchase of open space.

    Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,
    7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

    City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

    Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

    Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


     

    REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
    REGULAR MEETING
    OCTOBER 2, 2001
    FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD


     

    CALL TO ORDERNEXT RESOL. NO. RDA 2001-14

    APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

    APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


    A. July and August Treasurer’s Reports. (McLean)

    Recommendation: Receive and file.

    TO:HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THEBOARD

    FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

    DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

    SUBJECT:JULY 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

    Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Receive and file the July 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

    BACKGROUND:

    Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of July 2001 for the Redevelopment Agency.

    ANALYSIS:

    The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $570,510 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $3,155,733 at July 31, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

    Reviewed:
    Les Evans, Executive Director



    TO:HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

    FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AGENCY TREASURER

    DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

    SUBJECT:AUGUST 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

    Staff Coordinator:Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Receive and file the August 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency.

    BACKGROUND:

    Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of August 2001 for the Redevelopment Agency.

    ANALYSIS:

    The cash balances of the Redevelopment Agency decreased by $505,310 during the month, ending with an overall balance of $2,650,424 at August 31, 2001. The majority of the month’s expenditures were related to ongoing progress payments for the construction of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project. It is expected that the Agency will continue to experience large monthly decreases in cash until the completion of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer Project.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Agency Treasurer

    Reviewed:
    Les Evans, Executive Director

    B. Register of Demands. (McLean)

    Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


    PUBLIC COMMENTS: This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda: each speaker is limited to three minutes.


    ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.


    IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
    AGENDA
    REGULAR MEETING
    OCTOBER 2, 2001
    FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

     

    CALL TO ORDER:NEXT RESOL. NO. IA 2001-11

    APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

    APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:


    1. July and August Treasurer’s Reports. (McLean)

    Recommendation: Receive and file.

    TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

    FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

    DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

    SUBJECT:JULY 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

    Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Receive and file the July 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

    BACKGROUND:

    Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of July 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

    ANALYSIS:

    The Improvement Authority’s cash increased by $26,955 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,608,203 at July 31, 2001. Cash activity during July 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund, $22,645 interest earned and approximately $3,600 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

    Reviewed:
    Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer



    TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

    FROM:FINANCE DIRECTOR/AUTHORITY TREASURER

    DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

    SUBJECT:AUGUST 2001 TREASURER’S REPORT

    Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Receive and file the August 2001 Treasurer's Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Improvement Authority.

    BACKGROUND:

    Government Code Section 53646 requires all government entities to submit an investment report to the governing board on at least a quarterly basis. Staff has elected to separately prepare a monthly Treasurer’s report for each of the three components (City, Redevelopment Agency, Improvement Authority) of the City. The three reports summarize the monthly cash and investment activities for each of the entities, in addition to documenting individual fund cash balances at month end. The attached treasurer's report covers the month of August 2001 for the Improvement Authority.

    ANALYSIS:

    The Improvement Authority’s cash decreased by $1,822 during the past month, ending with an overall balance of $1,606,381 at August 31, 2001. Cash activity during August 2001 was limited to the receipt of the $7,917 monthly transfer from the City’s General fund and approximately $9,700 of cash outlays for routine dewatering well maintenance activities.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Dennis McLean, Finance Director/Authority Treasurer

    Reviewed:
    Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer


    2. Register of Demands. (McLean)

    Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. IA

    2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


    REGULAR BUSINESS:


    3. ACLAD Information Briefing. (Lyon/Gardiner)

    Recommendation: Receive the briefing from ACLAD chairman Robert Douglas and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

     

    TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBERS

    FROM:CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

    DATE:OCTOBER 2, 2001

    SUBJECT:ACLAD INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING

    RECOMMENDATION

    Receive the briefing from ACLAD Chairman Robert Douglas and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

    BACKGROUND

    In 1980 the State approved legislation to allow the formation of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts. The Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) was formed under this legislation in 1981. Through assessments on properties within the District boundaries funds have been raised to install landslide mitigation measures. ACLAD has installed and maintains approximately eighteen de-watering wells in and around the Abalone Cove Landslide. These wells have been instrumental in slowing the movement of the slide.

    The 1987 Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency and the County of Los Angeles directed the creation of a Joint Powers Maintenance Authority (JPMA) to oversee the on-going maintenance of capital improvements constructed by the Redevelopment Agency with the bond proceeds. The Agreement further stipulated that $1 million of the bond proceeds be set aside in a separate maintenance trust fund. The accrued interest on this fund can be used only for maintenance purposes. The original principal amount of $1 million cannot be expended. The interest earnings are to be used to maintain the landslide abatement improvements constructed by the RDA pursuant to the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement, with the exception of sewer systems. In addition, the funds generated by the maintenance trust fund may also be used, to the extent not otherwise used for the maintenance of improvements constructed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, to maintain public landslide abatement improvements that were not constructed with the proceeds of the assessment bonds.

    On May 2, 2000, the JPMA authorized the use of a portion of the investment earnings (up to $60,000 annually) in the maintenance trust fund to assist in paying for the maintenance and utilities associated with the thirteen dewatering wells, pumps, and pipelines which were in existence prior to the Reimbursement and Settlement Agreement. Currently, ACLAD charges property owners an annual assessment for the operation and maintenance of these wells as well as for other ACLAD administrative costs. ACLAD’s budget is approximately $140,000, of which approximately $60,000 is for the operation and maintenance costs associated with the wells.

    DISCUSSION

    The ACLAD Board of Directors has requested that the Improvement Authority fund an extensive program of maintenance proposed to rehabilitate the existing de-watering well system. As a prelude to any JPMA discussion of the matter, Dr. Douglas has offered to provide the Authority Board a briefing on ACLAD’s activities and their proposed maintenance plan.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Les Evans, Chief Administrative Officer

    Attachment:
    Letter from ACLAD of September 11, 2001

     


    PUBLIC COMMENTS: For items NOT on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.


    ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

    View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or

    A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.